Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Determination:
Federal Fiscal Years 2018–22

 

 

 

 

 

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Staff

Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is composed of the following:

 

MassDOT Office of Planning and Programming                                 City of Somerville  (Inner Core Committee)

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority                                   City of Woburn  (North Suburban Planning Council)

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board          Town of Arlington  (At-Large Town)

MassDOT Highway Department                                                          Town of Bedford 

Massachusetts Port Authority                                                            (Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination)

Metropolitan Area Planning Council                                                Town of Braintree  (South Shore Coalition)

Regional Transportation Advisory Council                                        Town of Framingham  (MetroWest Regional Collaborative)

City of Boston                                                                                     Town of Lexington  (At-Large Town)

City of Beverly  (North Shore Task Force)                                        Town of Medway  (South West Advisory Planning Committee)

City of Everett  (At-Large City)                                                        Town of Norwood  (Three Rivers Interlocal Council)

City of Newton  (At-Large City)                                                        Federal Highway Administration (nonvoting)

Federal Transit Administration (nonvoting)

 

map of Boston Region MPO area

 

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. Any person who believes herself/himself or any specific class of persons has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI, ADA, or other non-discrimination statute or regulation may, herself/himself or via a representative, file a written complaint with the MPO. A complaint must be filed no later than 180 calendar days after the date on which the person believes the discrimination occurred. A complaint form and additional information can be obtained by contacting the MPO (see below) or at www.bostonmpo.org.

 

Please visit www.ctps.org to view the full TIP. To request a copy of the TIP in CD or accessible formats, please contact us by any of the following means:

 

Mail                      Boston Region MPO
                             Certification Activities Group
                             10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150
                             Boston, MA 02116-3968
 
Telephone:           857.702.3700
TTY:                     617.973.7089
Fax:                     617.570.9192
Email:                   publicinfo@ctps.org

 

 

This document was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. DOT.

 

Table of Contents

Executive summary                                                                                                                      Es-1

Chapter One – The 3C Process                                                                                                   1-1

Chapter Two – The TIP Process                                                                                                 2-1

Chapter Three – Summary of Highway and transit Programming                             3-1        

         Project Tables FFYs 2018–22                                                                                               3-3

         Highway Program – Project Detail Pages                                                                            3-35   

Chapter FOUR – using Performance Measures To Track and Demonstrate

Progress                                                                                                                                            4-1

Chapter Five – Determination of Air Quality Conformity                                             5-1                 

Chapter SIX – Financial Constraint                                                                                        6-1

  

Appendices                                                                                                                                                    

       A   Universe of Projects for Highway Discretionary ("Regional Target") Funding and

                  Evaluation Results                                                                                                      A-1

       B   Project Information Forms and Evaluations                                                                    B-1                 

       C   Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation                                                                    C-1

       D   Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2018–22 TIP                                                            D-1

       E  MPO Glossary of Acronyms                                                                                               E-1

       F   Geographic Distribution Analysis of the TIP’s MPO Target Programming                           F-1

     

 

Executive Summary

Federal Fiscal Years 2018–22 Transportation Improvement Program

 

introduction

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s five-year transportation capital investment plan, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), is the near-term investment program for the region’s transportation system. Guided by the Boston Region MPO’s vision, goals, and objectives, the TIP prioritizes investments that preserve the current transportation system in a state of good repair, provide safe transportation for all modes, enhance livability, and improve mobility throughout the region. These investments fund major highway reconstruction, arterial and intersection improvements, maintenance and expansion of the public transit system, bicycle path construction, and improvements for pedestrians.

The Boston Region MPO is a 22-member board with representatives of state agencies, regional organizations, and municipalities; its jurisdiction extends from Boston north to Ipswich, south to Duxbury, and west to Interstate 495. Each year, the MPO conducts a process to decide how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects. The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), which is the staff to the MPO, manages the TIP-development process.

MPO staff coordinate the evaluation of project requests, propose programming of current and new projects based on anticipated funding levels, support the MPO in developing a draft TIP document, and facilitate a public review of the draft before the MPO endorses the final document.

Federal fiscal years 2018–22 Tip overview

The federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2018–22 TIP consists of transportation investments programmed in the Highway Program and Transit Program. These investments reflect the MPO’s goal of targeting a majority of transportation resources to preserve and modernize the existing roadway and transit system and maintain them in a state of good repair.

This TIP also devotes a significant portion of funding for the targeted expansion of the rapid transit system and new shared-use paths. In addition, a number of the infrastructure investments in this TIP address needs identified in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, or implement recommendations from past studies and reports that were funded through the MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) http://www.bostonmpo.org/upwp.  

The TIP also supports the strategic priorities of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT):

FFYs 2018–22 TIP investments

Transit Program

The Transit Program of the TIP provides funding for projects and programs that address the capital needs prioritized by the three transit agencies in the region: the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), and the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA). The Transit Program is predominantly dedicated to achieving and maintaining a state of good repair for all assets throughout the transit system.

Highway Program

The Highway Program of the TIP funds the priority transportation projects advanced by MassDOT and the cities and towns within the 101-municipality MPO region. The program is devoted primarily to preserve and modernize the existing roadway network by resurfacing highways, replacing bridges, and reconstructing arterial roadways.

In Massachusetts, Federal-Aid Highway Program funding is portioned out by MassDOT, which allocates funding to Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) payments, various statewide programs, and the state’s MPOs. The “Regional Target” funding provided to the MPOs can be programmed for projects at the discretion of each MPO.

REGIONAL TARGET PROGRAM DETAILS

During FFYs 2018–22, the Boston Region MPO plans to fund 32 projects and programs with its Regional Target funding:

Figure ES-1 shows how the Regional Target funding for FFYs 2018–22 is distributed across the MPO’s investment programs. As the chart shows, the Boston Region MPO’s Regional Target Program is devoted primarily to modernizing and expanding the transportation network through Major Infrastructure and Complete Streets investments.

 

FIGURE ES-1

FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Funding,
by Investment Program Type

Figure ES-1 - FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Funding by Investment Program Type: This chart shows the distribution of $493.6 million in federal fiscal years 2018-22 MPO Regional Target Funding across five MPO programs: Major Infrastructure (61.6%), Complete Streets (28.4%), Intersection Improvements (5.9%), Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections (3.8%), and Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility (.4%).

 

Data Source: CTPS

These investments will be implemented in 31 cities and towns throughout the MPO region, ranging from high-density, built-out Inner Core communities to Developing Suburbs with large expanses of vacant developable land. Figure ES-2 identifies the type of communities—as defined by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)—that will receive these investments.

 

FIGURE ES-2

MPO Municipalities containing FFYs 2018–22 TIP Program Projects, by MAPC Community Type

Data Source: CTPS

 

financing the ffys 2018–22 tip

Transit Program

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) allocates the funds programmed in the TIP Transit Program by formula. The three regional transit authorities in the Boston Region MPO area that are recipients of these funds are the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA. The MBTA, with its extensive transit program and infrastructure, is the recipient of the preponderance of the region’s federal transit funds.

Under the federal transportation legislation, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, funding is allocated by the following categories:

Highway Program

The TIP Highway Program was developed with the assumption that federal funding for the state would range between $648 million and $708 million annually over the next five years (these amounts include the funds that would be set aside as payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program and exclude required matching funds).

The process of deciding how to use this federal funding in the Boston region follows several steps. MassDOT first reserves funding for Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) debt service payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program; annual GANs payments range between $62 million and $117 million annually over the five years of this TIP.

The remaining Federal-Aid Highway Program funds are budgeted to support state and regional (i.e., MPO) priorities. In this planning cycle, $704 million to $745 million annually was available statewide for programming (these amounts include both federal dollars and the local match). MassDOT customarily provides the local match (which can also be provided by other entities); thus, projects are typically funded with 80 percent federal dollars and 20 percent state dollars, depending on the funding program.

Next, MassDOT allocates funding across the following funding categories:

After these needs have been satisfied, MassDOT allocates the remaining funding among the state’s MPOs for programming. This discretionary funding for MPOs is suballocated by formula to determine the Regional Target amounts. MassDOT develops these targets in consultation with the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies. This TIP assumes that the Boston Region MPO will have between $95 million and $101 million annually for Regional Target amounts.

Each MPO may decide how to prioritize their Regional Target funding. Given that the Regional Target funding is a subset of the Highway Program, the MPO typically programs the majority of funding on roadway projects; however, the MPO has flexed portions of its highway funding to the Transit Program for transit expansion projects. The TIP Highway Program details both the projects that will receive Regional Target funding from the Boston Region MPO and statewide infrastructure projects within the Boston region.

the tip development process

Overview

In order to determine which projects to fund through the Regional Target funding process, MPO members collaborate with municipalities, state agencies, members of the public, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders. The MPO’s project selection process uses evaluation criteria to help identify and prioritize projects that advance the MPO’s goals:

These goals also shape a series of MPO investment programs, which are designed to direct Regional Target funding towards MPO priority areas over the next 25 years:

Projects that the MPO will select to receive Regional Target funding through the TIP development process are included in one of the five programs listed above.

Outreach and Data Collection

The outreach process begins early in the federal fiscal year, when cities and towns designate TIP contacts and begin developing a list of priority projects to be considered for federal funding. Each November, MPO staff ask the staff of cities and towns in the region to identify their priority projects.

MPO staff compile the project funding requests into a Universe of Projects, a list of all projects identified as potential candidates to receive funding through the TIP. The Universe includes projects that are fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction, those that are undergoing preliminary engineering and design, as well as projects still in the conceptual or planning stage. MPO staff also collect data on each project in the Universe so that the projects can be evaluated.

Project Evaluation

MPO staff evaluate projects based on how well they address the MPO’s goals. To fully evaluate a project, it must be at the 25 percent design stage or the plans must include the level of detail defined in a functional design report. The evaluation results are posted on the MPO’s website, allowing project proponents, municipal officials, and members of the public to view them and provide feedback.

TIP Readiness Day

An important step toward TIP programming takes place midway through the TIP development cycle at a meeting, referred to as TIP Readiness Day, attended by MassDOT and MPO staff. At this meeting, MassDOT project managers provide updates about cost and schedule changes related to currently programmed projects. These cost and schedule changes must to be taken into account as MPO staff help the MPO board consider updates to the already programmed years of the TIP as well as the addition of new projects in the outermost year of the TIP.

Staff Recommendation and Draft TIP

Using the evaluation results and information about project readiness (when a project likely would be fully designed and ready for construction), staff prepare the First-Tier List of Projects. This list contains those projects that are supported by a project proponent (a municipality or MassDOT) and that could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s time horizon—the next five federal fiscal years. The projects are ranked based on the evaluation results.

MPO staff then prepare a recommendation or a series of programming scenarios for how to program the Regional Target funding in the TIP based on the First-Tier List of Projects and other considerations, such as whether a project was included in the LRTP, addresses an identified transportation need, or promotes a distribution of transportation investments across the region.

The staff recommendation is always financially constrained, subject to available funding. There was approximately $493 million of Regional Target funding available to the Boston Region MPO for FFYs 2018–22. This year, the MPO discussed programming scenarios for the discretionary Highway Target Program in March, and developed a final draft recommendation in April.

approving the tip

The MPO considers the evaluation results, First-Tier List of Projects, and staff recommendation when prioritizing which projects should receive Regional Target funding. In addition to prioritizing the Regional Target funding, the MPO also reviews the Statewide Infrastructure Items and Bridge Programs that are programmed by MassDOT, as well as the capital programs for the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA, before voting to release a draft TIP for public review.

In April 2017, the MPO voted to release the draft FFYs 2018–22 TIP for a 21-day public comment period, during which the MPO invited members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders in the Boston region to review the proposed program. During the public comment period, MPO staff hosted extended “Office Hours,” an open-house style public meeting, to discuss the draft document and elicit additional comments on the draft TIP.

After the public comment period concluded, the MPO reviewed all municipal and public comments and made changes to the document as appropriate. The MPO then endorsed the TIP and submitted it to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the FTA for approval. MassDOT incorporates the MPO-endorsed TIP into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The FHWA, FTA and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review the STIP for certification by September 30, the close of the federal fiscal year.

Updates to the TIP

Even after the TIP has been finalized, administrative modifications, amendments, and adjustments often must be introduced because of changes in project status, project cost, or available revenues. This may necessitate reprogramming a project to a later funding year or programming additional funds for a project.

Notices of administrative modifications and amendments are posted on the MPO’s website. If an amendment is necessary, the Regional Transportation Advisory Council—the public advisory board to the MPO—is informed, and the MPO notifies affected municipalities and other stakeholders via email. The MPO typically holds a 30-day public comment period (in FFY 2017, a 21-day period was used) before taking final action on an amendment. In extraordinary circumstances, the MPO may vote to shorten the public comment period to a minimum of 15 days.1 Administrative modifications and adjustments are generally minor and usually do not warrant a public comment period. See Chapter 2 for more details on what qualifies as an adjustment or an amendment and the process of updating the TIP.

stay involved with the Tip

Public input is an important aspect of the transportation-planning process. Please visit www.bostonmpo.org for more information about the MPO, to view the entire TIP, and to submit your comments. You also may wish to sign up for our email news updates and notices by contacting us at publicinfo@ctps.org or signing up at www.ctps.org/subscribe.

To request a copy of the TIP in CD or accessible formats, please contact us by any of the following means:

Mail:               Boston Region MPO c/o CTPS

                        Certification Activities Group

                        10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150

                        Boston, MA  02116-3968

Telephone:   857.702.3700

TTY:                617.973.7089

Fax:                617.570.9192

Email:             publicinfo@ctps.org

Chapter One

The 3C Process

introduction to the 3C process

Decisions about how to spend transportation funds in a metropolitan area are guided by information and ideas from a broad group of people, including elected officials, municipal planners and engineers, transportation advocates, and other interested persons. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are the bodies responsible for providing a forum for this decision-making process. Each metropolitan area in the United States with a population of 50,000 or more has an MPO, which decides how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects and planning studies.

In order to be eligible for federal funds, metropolitan areas are required to maintain a continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative (3C) multimodal, performance-based transportation-planning process that results in plans and programs consistent with the objectives of the metropolitan area.2 The 3C planning process in the Boston region is the responsibility of the Boston Region MPO, which has established the following objectives for the process:

The Boston Region MPO

The Boston Region MPO is a 22-member board consisting of state agencies and regional and municipal organizations. Its jurisdiction extends from Boston north to Ipswich, south to Duxbury, and west to Interstate 495. There are 101 cities and towns that make up this area. Those municipalities are divided into eight subregional areas (as shown in Figure 1-1).

As part of its 3C planning process, the Boston Region MPO annually produces the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). These documents, along with the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), are required for the MPO to be certified as meeting federal requirements, which, in turn, is a prerequisite for receiving federal transportation funds. These three plans are often referred to as certification documents.

This TIP was developed and approved by the permanent and elected MPO voting members. The following are permanent voting members:

 

Municipal MPO members are elected by chief elected officials of the 101 municipalities in the MPO region to represent the entire region. There are seats designated for at-large cities and at-large towns—which, respectively, may be filled by any city and town in the region—as well as seats for cities and towns within specific subregions. The current elected municipal MPO voting members and their respective seats are as follows:

-	Figure 1-1: Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Subregional Groups:  Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Subregional Groups map:  This figure displays the 101 cities and towns that make up this area. Those municipalities are divided into eight subregional areas.

 

In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate in the MPO as advisory (nonvoting) members. Figure 1-2 is an organization chart of MPO membership and of the MPO’s staff, the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS).

More details about the MPO’s members are cited below. All members—except for MassDOT and the City of Boston—hold one seat on the MPO board. MassDOT has three seats, including one for the Highway Division. The City of Boston has two seats.

MassDOT was established under Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009, An Act Modernizing the Transportation Systems of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. MassDOT has four divisions: Highway, Rail and Transit, Aeronautics, and Registry of Motor Vehicles. The MassDOT Board of Directors, comprised of 11 members appointed by the governor, oversees all four divisions and all MassDOT operations, including the MBTA.

The MBTA has the statutory responsibility within its district, under the provisions of Chapter 161A of the Massachusetts General Laws (MGLs), for preparing the engineering and architectural designs for transit development projects, constructing and operating transit development projects, and operating the public transportation system. The MBTA district comprises 175 communities, including all of the 101 cities and towns of the Boston Region MPO area. Starting in April 2015, as a result of an action plan to improve the MBTA, a five-member Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) was created to oversee the MBTA’s finances and management and to increase accountability over a three-to-five-year period. By statute, the FMCB consists of five members, one with experience in transportation finance, one with experience in mass transit operations, and three who are also members of the MassDOT Board of Directors.

The MBTA Advisory Board was created by the state legislature in 1964 through the same legislation that created the MBTA. The Advisory Board consists of representatives from the 175 cities and towns that compose the MBTA district. Cities are represented by either the city manager or mayor, and towns are represented by the chairperson of the board of selectmen. Specific responsibilities of the Advisory Board include providing public oversight of MBTA expenditures; reviewing and offering advice on the MBTA’s long-range plan, the Program for Mass Transportation (PMT); evaluating the MBTA’s annual budget; evaluating proposed fare changes and substantial changes in transit service; and consulting with the MBTA about service quality standards.

Massport has the statutory responsibility under Chapter 465 of the Acts of 1956, as amended, of planning, constructing, owning, and operating such transportation and related facilities as may be necessary for developing and improving commerce in Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area. Massport owns and operates Boston’s Logan International Airport, Conley Freight Terminal, Cruiseport Boston, Hanscom Field, Worcester Regional Airport, and various maritime and waterfront properties, including parks in East Boston, South Boston, and Charlestown.

The Metropolitan Area Planning Council is the regional planning agency for the 101 cities and towns in the Boston region. It is composed of the chief executive officer (or their designee) of each city and town in the region, 21 gubernatorial appointees, and 12 ex officio members. MAPC has statutory responsibility for comprehensive regional planning in the region under Chapter 40B of the MGLs. It is the Boston Metropolitan Clearinghouse under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, and Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. MAPC’s planning area also has been designated as an economic development district under Title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. MAPC’s responsibilities for comprehensive planning include providing technical assistance to communities, transportation planning, and the development of zoning, land use, and demographic and environmental studies.

The City of Boston, six elected cities (currently Beverly, Braintree, Everett, Newton, Somerville, and Woburn), and six elected towns (currently Arlington, Bedford, Framingham, Lexington, Medway, and Norwood) represent the region’s 101 municipalities in the Boston Region MPO. The City of Boston is a permanent MPO member (with two seats). There is one elected municipal seat for each of the eight MAPC subregions, and there are four at-large elected municipalities (two cities and two towns). The elected at-large municipalities serve staggered three-year terms, as do the eight municipalities representing the MAPC subregions.

The Regional Transportation Advisory Council, the MPO’s public advisory group, provides the opportunity for transportation-related organizations, agencies, and municipal representatives to become actively involved in the MPO’s decision-making processes for planning and programming transportation projects in the region. The Advisory Council reviews, comments on, and makes recommendations on the MPO’s certification documents. The Advisory Council also provides information about transportation topics in the region, identifies issues, advocates for ways to address the region’s transportation needs, and generates interest in the work of the MPO among members of the general public.

Two other members participate in the Boston Region MPO in an advisory (nonvoting) capacity, reviewing the MPO’s certification documents to ensure compliance with federal planning and programming requirements: the FHWA and FTA oversee the highway and transit programs of the US Department of Transportation under the pertinent legislation and the provisions of FAST Act.

Two entities assist the MPO board in carrying out the responsibilities of the MPO’s 3C planning process through policy implementation, technical support, and public participation:

Certification Documents

The following section briefly describes the three documents produced by the MPO as part of its federally required 3C planning process:


-	Figure 1-2: Boston Region MPO Organizational Chart: This figure shows the membership of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, as described in the chapter, along with the organizational chart of the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) below.

 

public transit expansion and maintenance, bicycle paths and related facilities, and improvements to pedestrian infrastructure. The TIP contains a financial plan that shows the revenue sources, current or proposed, for each project. The TIP serves as the implementation arm of the LRTP; the Boston Region MPO updates the TIP annually. An MPO-endorsed TIP is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program, which in turn is submitted to FHWA, FTA, and the US Environmental Protection Agency for approval.

Consistency with Federal Planning Regulations

FAST Act Legislation

The FAST Act requires all MPOs to fulfill the 3C planning process. To meet this requirement, MPOs must perform the following activities:

The FAST Act also maintains national goals for federal highway programs, including the following:

1.   Safety: Achieve significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads

2.   Infrastructure condition: Maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair

3.   Congestion reduction: Achieve significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System

4.   System reliability: Improve efficiency of the surface transportation system

5.   Freight movement and economic vitality: Improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development

6.   Environmental sustainability: Enhance performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment

7.   Reduced project delivery delays: Reduce project costs; promote jobs and the economy; and expedite movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion, eliminating delays in the development and delivery process, lessening regulatory burdens, and improving the work practices of the agencies involved

In addition, the FAST Act maintains the federal planning factors established in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and adds two new planning factors. In accordance with the legislation, the MPO shall comply with the following factors:

 

Federal guidance dictates that the 3C planning process should facilitate the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight. The surface transportation system should foster economic growth and development within and between states and urbanized areas, and take into consideration resiliency needs while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution.

The FAST Act continues to emphasize performance-based planning as an integral part of the metropolitan-planning process. States are to develop performance goals, guided by the national goals, and then MPOs will work with state departments of transportation (DOTs) and public transportation providers to develop MPO performance targets. The TIP will integrate the MPOs’ performance measures and link transportation investment decisions to progress toward achieving performance goals.

Consistency with Other Federal Legislative Requirements

The Clean Air Act of 1990

Air quality conformity determinations must be performed for LRTPs and TIPs in areas that are classified as in nonattainment for pollutants controlled by national air quality standards. Capital improvement projects that receive federal funding and that are considered regionally significant must be analyzed for their effect on air quality. These determinations must show that the LRTP and TIP will not cause or contribute to any new air-quality violations, will not increase the frequency or severity of any existing air quality violations in any area, and will not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards in any area.

A determination must also be performed if there are transportation control measures identified in the Commonwealth’s State Implementation Plan for the attainment of air quality standards in the region. Transportation control measures are federally enforceable and projects that address the identified air quality issues must be given first priority when using federal funds. Such projects previously programmed in past TIPs include parking-freeze programs in Boston and Cambridge, statewide rideshare programs, rapid-transit and commuter-rail extension programs, park-and-ride facilities, residential parking-sticker programs, and operation of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes.

Nondiscrimination Mandates

The Boston Region MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all of its programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. The major federal requirements are discussed below.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This statute requires that no person be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity provided by an agency receiving federal financial assistance.

Executive Order 13166, dated August 11, 2000, extends Title VI protections to persons who, as a result of national origin, have limited English-language proficiency (LEP). Specifically, it calls for improved access to programs and activities conducted or assisted by federal agencies, and it requires MPOs to develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can meaningfully participate in the transportation-planning process.

Environmental Justice Executive Orders

Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, further expands upon Title VI, requiring each federal agency to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing any disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, including interrelated social and economic effects, resulting from its programs, policies, and activities.

On April 15, 1997, the US Department of Transportation issued its Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Among other provisions, this order calls for programming and planning activities to meet the following requirements:

The Americans with Disabilities Act

Title III of the ADA requires all transportation projects, plans, and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities. At the MPO level, this means that public meetings must be held in accessible buildings and documents must be made available in accessible formats.

Executive Order 13330

Executive Order 13330, dated February 26, 2004, calls for the establishment of the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, under the aegis of the US Secretary of Transportation. This executive order reinforces both environmental justice and ADA requirements by charging the council with developing policies and methods for improving access for people with disabilities, low-income persons, and older adults.

Coordination with Other MPO Planning Activities

Long-Range Transportation Plan

The MPO considers the degree to which a proposed TIP project would advance the goals and objectives of its LRTP. The MPO also reviews TIP projects within the context of the recommended projects already included in the LRTP.

Unified Planning Work Program

The MPO aims to implement the findings and recommendations of past studies and reports conducted through the UPWP when developing the TIP.

Congestion Management Process

The purpose of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) is to monitor and analyze the performance of transportation facilities and services; develop strategies to alleviate congestion; and move these strategies into the implementation stage by providing decision-makers in the region with information and recommendations. The CMP monitors roadways and park-and-ride facilities in the MPO region for safety, congestion, and mobility, and identifies problematic locations. Projects that help address problems identified in the most recent CMP monitoring endeavor were considered for inclusion in this TIP.

CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS

Global Warming Solutions Act

The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) makes Massachusetts a leader in setting aggressive and enforceable greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and implementing policies and initiatives to achieve these targets. In keeping with this law, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, in consultation with other state agencies and the public, developed the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. This implementation plan, released on December 29, 2010 (and updated in 2015), establishes the following targets for overall statewide GHG emission reductions:

In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection promulgated regulation 310 CMR 60.05, Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. This regulation places a range of obligations on MassDOT and MPOs to support achievement of the Commonwealth’s climate change goals through the programming of transportation funds. In particular, MPOs must use GHG impact as a selection criterion when they review projects to be programmed in their TIPs. Appendix C of this document includes information about these requirements and how the Boston Region MPO has addressed them in developing the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2018-22 TIP.

GreenDOT Policy

The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of GHGs—accounting for more than one-third of GHG emissions—and therefore is a major focus of the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. MassDOT’s approach to fulfilling its part of the plan is presented in its GreenDOT Policy Directive, a comprehensive sustainability initiative that sets three principal objectives:

The Commonwealth’s 13 MPOs are integrally involved in helping MassDOT achieve its GreenDOT objectives and supporting the GHG reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs seek to realize these objectives by prioritizing projects in the LRTP and TIP that will help reduce emissions from the transportation sector. The Boston Region MPO uses its TIP project evaluation criteria to score projects based on their GHG emissions impacts, multimodal Complete Streets accommodations, and ability to support smart-growth development. Tracking and evaluating GHG emissions by project will enable the MPOs to anticipate GHG impacts of the planned and programmed projects.

Coordination with Other Planning Activities

The MBTA’s Program for Mass Transportation

In 2009, the MBTA adopted its current Program for Mass Transportation (PMT). The PMT was developed with extensive public involvement and was approved by the MBTA Advisory Board.

The next PMT, Focus40, is under development. Focus40 is the 25-year investment plan to position the MBTA to meet the needs of the greater Boston region through 2040. The Focus40 process will create a long-term investment vision that recognizes current infrastructure challenges and the shifting demographics, changing climate, and evolving technology that may alter the role that the MBTA will play in greater Boston in the future. Focus40 will emphasize 1) improving system performance and reliability; 2) supporting economic growth; 3) supporting inclusive growth; 4) climate change mitigation and adaptation; and 5) providing a seamless multimodal experience.

In 2016, the Focus40 team examined the existing conditions and future context for the transit system, developed goals, and collected feedback and ideas for improvements through an extensive public engagement process. During 2017, the team will finalize the plan’s framework and objectives, propose programs and strategies that align with that framework, develop a recommended strategy, and finalize the plan. Recommendations from Focus40 will support MassDOT’s Capital Investment Plan. The Boston MPO continues to monitor the development of Focus40 to inform its decision making about transit capital investments.

MetroFuture

MetroFuture, which was developed by MAPC and adopted in 2008, is the long-range plan for land use, housing, economic development, and environmental preservation in the Boston region. It includes a vision for the region’s future and a set of strategies for achieving that future. Its goals and objectives were used in developing the future land-use scenario for Charting Progress to 2040. MetroFuture’s goals, objectives, and strategies were considered in the development of this TIP.

youMove Massachusetts and weMove Massachusetts

A statewide initiative designed as a bottom-up approach to transportation planning, youMove Massachusetts (YMM) derived 10 core themes from a broad-based public participation process that articulated the expressed concerns, needs, and aspirations of Massachusetts residents related to their transportation network. Those themes have been considered in the development of this TIP.

In May 2014, MassDOT released weMove Massachusetts: Planning for Performance (WMM), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 2040 LRTP. WMM is a statewide strategic multimodal plan that is a product of the transportation reform legislation of 2009 and the YMM civic engagement process. It identifies high-level policy priorities that were considered in the development of this TIP. WMM also incorporates performance management into investment decision-making to calculate the differences in performance outcomes resulting from different funding levels available to MassDOT. In the future, MassDOT will use this scenario-based tool to update and refine investment priorities. The TIP builds on this data-driven method to prioritize transportation investments.

Healthy Transportation Compact

The Healthy Transportation Compact (HTC) is a major requirement of the Massachusetts landmark transportation reform legislation that took effect on November 1, 2009. It is an interagency initiative that will help ensure that the transportation decisions made by the Commonwealth balance the needs of all transportation users, expand mobility, improve public health, support a cleaner environment, and create stronger communities.

The agencies work together to achieve positive health outcomes by coordinating land-use, transportation, and public health policy. HTC membership is made up of the secretary of transportation (co-chair), secretary of health and human services (co-chair), secretary of energy and environmental affairs, secretary of housing and economic development, administrator of transportation for highways, administrator of transportation for mass transit, and the commissioner of public health (each of whom may select a representative to serve in their stead).

The HTC also promotes improved coordination among the public sector, private sector, and advocacy groups, as well as among transportation, land-use, and public health stakeholders. As part of the framework for the HTC, MassDOT established a HTC Advisory Council comprised of advocates and leaders in the fields of land-use, transportation, and public health policy.

MassDOT Mode Shift Goal

In the fall of 2012, MassDOT announced a statewide mode shift goal to triple the share of travel by bicycling, transit, and walking between 2010 and 2030. The mode shift goal aims to foster improved quality of life by protecting our environment and preserving the capacity of our highway network. In addition, positive public health outcomes will be achieved by providing more healthy transportation options.

On September 9, 2013, MassDOT passed the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive to formalize its commitment to implementing and maintaining transportation networks that serve all mode choices. This directive will ensure that all MassDOT projects are designed and implemented in ways that provide all customers with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options.

In November 2015, MassDOT released the Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide. This guide represents the next—but not the last—step in MassDOT’s continuing commitment to Complete Streets, sustainable transportation, and the creation of more safe and convenient transportation options for Massachusetts’ residents. This guide may be used by project planners and designers as a resource for considering, evaluating, and designing separated bike lanes as part of a Complete Streets approach.

In Charting Progress to 2040, the Boston Region MPO has established investment programs—particularly its Complete Streets and Bicycle and Pedestrian programs—that support the implementation of Complete Streets projects. These investment programs are reflected in this TIP. The MPO’s TIP project selection criteria also support the programming of Complete Streets and bicycle and pedestrian investments.

Consistency with MPO goals and objectives

In the development of Charting Progress to 2040, the Boston Region MPO updated its vision, goals, and objectives. These updated goals and objectives, listed on the following pages, guided the 2016 update of the TIP evaluation criteria. As such, the investments in the TIP aim to achieve the following:

Figure 1-3:

Goals and Objectives


GOALS OBJECTIVES
SAFETY
Transportation by all modes will be safe
• Reduce number and severity of crashes, all modes
• Reduce serious injuries and fatalities from transportation
• Protect transportation customers and employees from safety and security threats (Note: The MPO action will be to incorporate security investments into capital planning.)
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
Maintain the transportation system
• Improve condition of on- and off-system bridges 
• Improve pavement conditions on MassDOT-monitored roadway system 
• Maintain and modernize capital assets, including transit assets, throughout the system 
• Prioritize projects that support planned response capability to existing or future extreme conditions (sea level rise, flooding, and other natural and security- related man-made hazards) 
• Protect freight network elements, such as port facilities, that are vulnerable to climate-change impacts
CAPACITY MANAGEMENT/MOBILITY
Use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation capacity
• Improve reliability of transit
• Implement roadway management and operations strategies, constructing improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network, and supporting community-based transportation
• Create connected network of bicycle and accessible sidewalk facilities (at both regional and neighborhood scale) by expanding existing facilities and closing gaps
• Increase automobile and bicycle parking capacity and usage at transit stations
• Increase percentage of population and places of employment within one-quarter mile of transit stations and stops
• Increase percentage of population and places of employment with access to bicycle facilities
• Improve access to and accessibility of transit and active modes
• Support community-based and private-initiative services and programs to meet   last mile, reverse commute and other non-traditional transit/transportation needs, including those of the elderly and persons with disabilities
• Eliminate bottlenecks on the freight network
• Enhance intermodal connections
• Emphasize capacity management through low-cost investments; give priority to projects that focus on lower-cost O&M-type improvements such as intersection improvements and Complete Streets solutions
CLEAN AIR/CLEAN COMMUNITIES
Create an environmentally friendly transportation system
• Reduce greenhouse gases generated in the Boston region by all transportation modes as outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act
• Reduce other transportation-related pollutants
• Minimize negative environmental impacts of the transportation system
• Support land use policies consistent with smart and healthy growth
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY
Provide comparable transportation access and service quality among communities, regardless of income level or minority population
• Target investments to areas that benefit a high percentage of low-income and minority populations
• Minimize any burdens associated with MPO-funded projects in low-income and minority areas
• Break down barriers to participation in MPO-decision making
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Ensure our transportation network provides a strong foundation for economic vitality
• Respond to the mobility needs of the 25–34-year-old workforce
• Minimize the burden of housing and transportation costs for residents in the region
• Prioritize transportation investments that serve targeted development sites
• Prioritize transportation investments consistent with the compact-growth strategies of MetroFuture

 

Chapter Two

The TIP Process

INTRODUCTION TO THE TIP Process

In planning for its region’s future, one of the most important decisions a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) faces is deciding how to allocate limited funds. Transportation improvements form part of the solution to many critical regional, state, national, and even global problems, such as traffic congestion, air pollution, traffic fatalities and injuries, climate change, and environmental justice. Because there is not nearly enough funding available to build all of the necessary and worthy projects that would address these problems, MPO investment choices must be guided by policies that help identify the most viable solutions.

Thus, each year, the Boston Region MPO conducts a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development process that prioritizes transportation investments and helps the MPO decide how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects. The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) to the Boston Region MPO manages the annual development process for the TIP. MPO staff help evaluate project funding requests, propose programming for new and ongoing projects based on anticipated yearly funding levels, support the MPO by creating a draft TIP document, and facilitate a public review of the draft before the MPO endorses the final document.

FINANCING THE PROGRAM

Federal Framework

The first step in allocating federal transportation funds is the passage by the United States Congress of a multiyear act that establishes a maximum level of federal transportation funding per federal fiscal year (FFY). The establishment of this level of funding is referred to as an authorization. The most recent authorization act, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), was signed into law on December 4, 2015.

Once the authorization level has been established, the United States Department of Transportation allocates funding among the states annually, based on various federal formulas. This allocation is referred to as an apportionment. The annual apportionment rarely represents the actual amount of federal funds that are ultimately committed to a state because of federally imposed limitations on spending in a given fiscal year, referred to as the obligation authority. In Massachusetts, TIPs are developed based on the estimated obligation authority.

Two of the most important distinctions between apportionment and obligation authority are 1) apportionment is allocated on a per program basis, while obligation authority is generally allocated as a lump sum; and 2) unused apportionment carries forward into successive FFYs, but unused obligation authority does not. Unused apportionment that is carried forward is referred to as an unobligated balance. Although a state’s unobligated balance can be used to increase the amount of federal aid programmed within a particular funding category in a given FFY, it cannot be used to increase the total amount of the state’s highway apportionment.

Federal Highway Program

Federal regulations require states to “provide MPOs with estimates of Federal and State funds which the MPOs shall utilize in developing financial plans” for TIPs. 3

The TIP Highway Program was developed with the assumption that federal funding for the state would range between $648 million and $708 million annually over the next five years (these amounts include the funds that would be set aside as payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program and exclude required matching funds).

The process of deciding how to use this federal funding in the Boston Region follows several steps. MassDOT first reserves funding for Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) debt service payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program; annual GANs payments range between $62 million and $117 million annually over the five years of this TIP.

The remaining Federal-Aid Highway Program funds are budgeted to support state and regional (i.e., MPO) priorities. In this planning cycle, $704 million to $745 million annually was available statewide for programming (these amounts include both federal dollars and the local match). MassDOT customarily provides the local match (which can also be provided by other entities); thus, projects are typically funded with 80 percent federal dollars and 20 percent state dollars, depending on the funding program.

Next, MassDOT allocates the remaining federal funding into the following categories:

The Regional Targets are discretionary funding for MPOs, suballocated by formula. MassDOT develops these targets in consultation with the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies (MARPA). Each MPO in the state can decide how to prioritize its Regional Target funding. Given that the Regional Target funding is a subset of the Highway Program, the MPO typically programs the majority of funding on roadway projects; however the Boston Region MPO has flexed portions of its Highway Program funding to the Transit Program for the Green Line Extension, a transit expansion project.

The MPO discretionary funding typically is used for modernization programs (intersection improvements and roadway reconstruction) and expansion projects (capacity and bicycle and pedestrian facilities), whereas statewide highway items cover the reliability programs (bridges, pavement, safety, and others).

During the next five years, the Boston Region MPO’s total Regional Target funding will be approximately $493 million, an average of $98 million per year. To decide how to spend its Regional Target funding, the Boston Region MPO engages its 101 cities and towns in an annual TIP development process.

Federal Transit Program

Federal aid for public transit authorities is allocated by formula to urbanized areas (UZAs). MassDOT is the recipient of this federal aid in the Boston UZA. In UZAs with populations greater than 200,000, such as the Boston UZA, the distribution formula factors in passenger-miles traveled, population density, and other factors associated with each transit provider. The three regional transit authorities (RTAs) in the Boston Region MPO area are the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA). The MBTA, with its extensive transit program and infrastructure, is the recipient of the preponderance of federal transit funds in the region.

Funding Programs

Metropolitan areas require support from many different federal-aid transportation programs, and each program has unique requirements. Federal programs in the FAST Act that fund projects in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP are listed in the following two tables.

 

TABLE 2-1:

Federal Highway Administration Programs Applicable to the FFYs 2018-22 TIP

FAST Act Program

Eligible Uses

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)

A wide range of projects to reduce congestion and improve air quality in nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements.

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)

 

Improvements to interstate routes, major urban and rural arterials, connectors to major intermodal facilities, and the national defense network; replacement or rehabilitation of any public bridge; and resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating routes on the Interstate Highway System

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP)

[formerly the Surface Transportation Program (STP)]

A broad range of surface transportation capital needs, including roads; transit, sea, and airport access; and vanpool, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

 

A set-aside from the STBGP that funds the construction of infrastructure-related projects (for example, sidewalk, crossing, and on-road bicycle facility improvements)

Metropolitan Planning

For facilities that contribute to an intermodal transportation system, including intercity bus, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities

National Highway Freight Program (NHFP)

For projects that improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network

 


 

TABLE 2-2:

Federal Transit Administration Programs Applicable to the FFYs 2018-22 TIP

FAST Act Program

Eligible Uses

Urbanized Area Formula Grants
(Section 5307)

Transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas

Fixed Guideway/Bus
(Section 5337)

Replacement, rehabilitation, and other state-of-good-repair capital projects

Bus and Bus Facilities
(Section 5339)

Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct
bus-related facilities

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities
(Section 5310)

Capital expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities

Fixed-Guideway Capital Investment Grants
(Section 5309)

Provides grants for new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry systems that reflect local priorities to improve transportation options in key corridors

 

developing the tip

Highway Discretionary (Regional Target) Funding Project Selection Process

Overview

The MPO’s process for selecting projects to receive highway discretionary—or Regional Target—funding involves using evaluation criteria to help identify and prioritize projects that advance the MPO’s goals. The criteria are based on the MPO’s goals and objectives, which were adopted for its current Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. All projects are required to show consistency with the LRTP and other statewide and regional plans.

The MPO staff evaluates each project that is considered for inclusion in the TIP based on a set of specific criteria that were developed by the MPO. Other factors considered include the readiness of a project for construction and municipal support for the project. Background information about the TIP project evaluation process is presented in Appendix B.

Outreach and Data Collection (November–February)

The process of reaching out to the public begins early in the FFY, when cities and towns designate TIP contacts and begin developing a list of priority projects to be considered for federal funding. Each November, MPO staff asks the staff of cities and towns in the region to identify their priority projects for consideration for federal funding. The MPO also elicits input from interested parties and members of the general public.

New projects must be initiated by the MassDOT Highway Division before they can be considered for programming in the TIP. MassDOT details the project initiation process and posts relevant documents on its Project Review Committee’s webpage, www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/ProjectManagement/ProjectReviewCommittee.aspx.  Municipal TIP Contacts and the MPO staff coordinate to update each project’s Project Funding Application Form through the MPO’s Interactive TIP Database, www.bostonmpo.org/apps/tip11/tip_query.html,  which summarizes information about each project's background, infrastructure condition and needs, development status, and ability to help the region attain the MPO’s goals and objectives. More information on the Project Funding Application Forms is presented in Appendix B.

MPO staff compiles the project funding requests into a Universe of Projects list, which consists of all identified projects being advanced for possible funding. The Universe includes projects that are fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction, those that are undergoing preliminary engineering and design, and projects still in the conceptual planning stage.

The MPO staff also monitors the anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of each planned and programmed project in order to consider these impacts when prioritizing transportation investments. For more information on GHG emission monitoring and evaluation, see Appendix C.

Project Evaluation (February–March)

The MPO uses TIP project evaluation criteria to logically and transparently evaluate and select projects for programming in the TIP that advance the transportation future envisioned by the MPO. This process favors projects that support the following aims:

The project evaluation criteria consist of 28 questions that relate to six goals. A list of the TIP evaluation criteria (on page 2-9) provides an overview of the goals, criteria, and their point values.

In order for MPO staff to conduct a complete project evaluation, the project must have a functional design report. See MassDOT’s Project Development and Design Guide for information about what is included in a functional design report or be at a 25 percent design stage, or its plans must include the level of detail defined in a functional design report. This guide is available at www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms/ProjectDevelopmentDesignGuide.aspx.  

The summary of evaluation results for projects considered for programming in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP is available in Table A-1 in Appendix A. The table contains the total project rating for each project. For more details about the evaluation criteria used to score projects, see Appendix B.

TIP Readiness Day

An important step toward TIP programming takes place midway through the TIP development cycle at a meeting, referred to as TIP Readiness Day, attended by MassDOT and MPO staff. At this meeting,  MassDOT project managers provide updates about cost and schedule changes related to currently programmed projects. These cost and schedule changes must to be taken into account as MPO staff help the MPO board consider updates to the already programmed years of the TIP as well as the addition of new projects in the outermost year of the TIP.

Staff Recommendation (March–April)

Using the evaluation ratings and information gathered about project readiness (when a project likely would be fully designed and ready for construction), staff prepares a First-Tier List of Projects. This list cites the projects that both earned the highest ratings in the MPO’s evaluation process, and which could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s time horizon—the next five FFYs.

The MPO staff strongly considers the First-Tier List of Projects when preparing a recommendation to the MPO for projects to program in the TIP. Other factors considered include whether a project was programmed in the LRTP, investment program goals, equity of investments across the region, and whether sufficient funding is available for the proposed projects.

 

The graphic shows the 28 evaluation criteria across six goals that the MPO uses to score TIP projects.

 

Figure 2-1:

TIP Evaluation Criteria

 

Figure 2-1: TIP Evaluation Criteria: The graphic shows the 28 evaluation criteria across the six MPO goals. The MPO uses these criteria to score TIP projects.


 

Selection Process for State Prioritized Projects

The process of selecting transit, bridge, and statewide infrastructure projects to be programmed in the TIP draws primarily from MassDOT’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP), which is a fully integrated capital plan produced by all MassDOT divisions and the MBTA.

Projects in the CIP are selected from MassDOT’s Universe of Projects. They are prioritized based on a process recommended by the independent Project Selection Advisory Council and on data from asset management systems maintained by MassDOT agencies.

Projects that receive the highest priority are those that meet MassDOT’s goals for maintaining and improving the overall condition and reliability of the system; modernizing the system to make it safer and more accessible and to accommodate growth; and expanding and diversifying transportation options for communities. The following criteria guide project selection:

 

The transit element of the TIP also includes the federal-aid programs of the other two transit authorities in the region, CATA and MWRTA. CATA and MWRTA coordinate with the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division to develop their capital programs.

approving the tip

Approval of the Draft TIP for Public Review

The MPO considers the evaluation results, First-Tier List of Projects, and staff recommendation in prioritizing projects for Regional Target funding. The body also considers public input, regional importance, and other factors in developing the draft TIP. In addition to prioritizing the Regional Target funding, the MPO reviews statewide infrastructure items, the Bridge Program, and the capital programs for the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA before voting to release a draft TIP for public review.

The MPO votes to release the draft document for public review and comment and invites members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders in the Boston region to review the proposed program. MPO staff hosts outreach events, including its Office Hours and similar Open House events, during the public comment period to elicit comments on the draft document; summaries of these public comments are listed in Appendix F.

Approval of the Draft TIP

After the comment period ends, the MPO reviews all municipal and public comments and makes changes to the document as appropriate. It then endorses the TIP and submits it to FHWA and FTA for approval. MassDOT incorporates the MPO-endorsed TIP into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The FHWA, FTA and US Environmental Protection Agency review the STIP for certification by September 30, the FFY end.

Updating the TIP

The TIP is a dynamic program that may be amended and adjusted throughout the year. Administrative modifications and amendments often must be introduced because of changes in project status (advertisement readiness), project cost, project design scope, or available revenues. An amendment is a revision that requires public review and comment and a demonstration of fiscal constraint.

Consistent with federal guidelines, if a project is valued at $5 million or less, the threshold for defining an amendment is a change of $500,000 or more. The threshold for projects valued at greater than $5 million is 10 percent or more of the project value. Changes that are less than these thresholds may be considered in the form of administrative modifications. The MPO acts on administrative modifications, and although a public review period is not required, one may be provided at the MPO’s discretion.

Affected municipalities and constituencies and the public are notified of pending amendments at the start of an amendment’s public review period. The proposed amendments are posted on the MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org. Public notices are distributed through MPOinfo, the MPO’s email contact list, which members of the public may join by signing up on the MPO’s website, www.ctps.org/subscribe.  

These notices provide a summary of the amendment’s contents, dates of the public review period, contact information for submitting a comment to the MPO, and the date, time and location that the MPO will take a vote on that amendment. Also during the public review period, the MPO staff notifies and briefs the Regional Transportation Advisory Council on the amendment and provides comments from the Council to the MPO. Municipal representatives and members of the public are also invited to submit written or oral testimony at the MPO meetings at which amendments are discussed or voted upon.

The MPO typically holds a 30-day comment period (in FFY 2017 the comment period was 21 days) before taking final action on an amendment. In extraordinary circumstances, the MPO may vote to shorten the public comment period to a minimum of 15 days. The MPO’s Public Participation Plan was amended in March 2017 to revise the duration of the public comment period from 30 days to 21 days for FFY 2017. The MPO’s website is the best place to find current information about the TIP.

All changes to the draft TIP that have been approved by the MPO, and changes to the endorsed TIP, such as amendments and modifications, that have been approved by the MPO, are available on the TIP webpage on the MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org/tip.

Comments or questions about the draft materials may be submitted directly through the website, via email, voiced at MPO meetings and other public MPO events, or submitted via US postal mail.

 

Chapter Three

Summary of Highway and Transit Programming

 

The following tables list, by year, the projects and programs funded in FFYs 2018–22.

A description of each project and program funded in the TIP’s Highway Program is presented, and programs funded under the Highway Program are listed by municipality.

 

2018 Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program      
     
Amendment /
Adjustment Type ▼
STIP                             Program ▼ MassDOT Project ID Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ Municipality Name ▼ MassDOT                                                                                                              Project                                                                                               Description MassDOT  District Funding                       Source Total Programmed                Funds Federal                    Funds Non-Federal                        Funds Additional Information ▼                                   Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information
►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects
►Regionally Prioritized Projects          
  Roadway reconstruction program 600518 Boston Region Hingham HINGHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT DERBY STREET, WHITING STREET (ROUTE 53) AND GARDNER STREET 5 HSIP  $611,547  $550,392  $61,155 Construction; STP+HSIP Total Cost = $2,844,392; MPO Evaluation Score = 28
Roadway reconstruction program 600518 Boston Region Hingham HINGHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT DERBY STREET, WHITING STREET (ROUTE 53) AND GARDNER STREET 5 STP  $2,232,845  $1,786,276  $446,569 Construction; STP+HSIP Total Cost = $2,844,392; MPO Evaluation Score = 28
Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 1570 Boston Region Multiple GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 6 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444 Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local
contributions; AC Yr 3 of 6
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 1570 Boston Region Multiple GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 6 STP  $33,072,780  $26,458,224  $6,614,556 Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local
contributions; AC Yr 3 of 6
  Roadway reconstruction program 604989 Boston Region Southborough SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET 6 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,271,690; MPO Evaluation Score = 42
  Roadway reconstruction program 604989 Boston Region Southborough SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET 3 TAP  $1,456,250  $1,165,000  $291,250 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,271,690; MPO Evaluation Score = 42; TAP project proponent = Southborough
  Roadway reconstruction program 604989 Boston Region Southborough SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET 3 STP  $4,815,440  $3,852,352  $963,088 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,271,690; MPO Evaluation Score = 42
  Roadway reconstruction program 605110 Boston Region Brookline BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) 6 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; TAP+STP+CMAQ+Private Sector Constribution ($1,000,000) = $7,000,834; MPO Evaluation Score = 68
  Roadway reconstruction program 605110 Boston Region Brookline BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) 6 TAP  $1,255,000  $1,004,000  $251,000 Construction; TAP+STP+CMAQ+Private Sector Constribution ($1,000,000) = $7,000,834; MPO Evaluation Score = 68; TAP project proponent = Brookline
  Roadway reconstruction program 605110 Boston Region Brookline BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) 6 STP  $3,745,834  $2,996,667  $749,167 Construction; TAP+STP+CMAQ+Private Sector Constribution ($1,000,000) = $7,000,834; MPO Evaluation Score = 68
  Capacity program 601630 Boston Region Multiple WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 6 STP  $27,631,758  $22,105,406  $5,526,352 Construction; STP+NHPP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark+BR Total Cost = $81,812,268; AC Yr 3 of 3 (project originally funded into FFY 2019, but all remaining funding was transferred into FFY 2018)
  Capacity program 603711 Boston Region Multiple NEEDHAM- WELLESLEY- REHAB/REPLACEMENT OF 6 BRIDGES ON I-95/ROUTE 128: N-04-020, N-04-021, N-04-022, N-04-026, N-04-027, N-04-037 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) 6 NHPP  $1,988,367  $1,590,694  $397,673 Construction; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($1,988,367 programmed within FFYs 2018-22 TIP) ; AC Yr 5 of 5
  Bicycles and pedestrians program 608352 Boston Region Salem SALEM- CANAL STREET RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION (PHASE 2) 4 TAP  $2,787,456  $2,229,965  $557,491 Construction; TAP Total Cost = $2,787,456; MPO Evaluation Score = 37; TAP project proponent = Salem
Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ►  $95,024,497  $76,080,752  $18,943,745 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis        
Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ►  $95,024,497  $95,038,936 ◄Total Budget  $14,439 Target Funds Available
Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. STP programmed ►  $73,487,024  $77,071,365 ◄ Max STP  $3,584,341 STP available
HSIP programmed ►  $611,547  $4,296,710 ◄ Min. HSIP  $3,685,163 HSIP recommended not met
CMAQ programmed ►  $15,427,220  $10,741,776 ◄ Min. CMAQ  $(4,685,444) CMAQ recommended met
TAP programmed ►  $5,498,706  $2,929,085 ◄ Min. TAP  $(2,569,621) TAP amount exceeded!
Remaining HSIP, CMAQ, and TAP Funds  $14,439      
►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects
►Other Federal Aid          
  Earmark Discretionary 606134 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON BLUE HILL AVENUE AND WARREN STREET 6 HPP  $2,501,046  $2,000,837  $500,209 Construction; HPP 2129 (MA155)
  Earmark Discretionary Project # Boston Municipalities Description District HPP  $-    $-    $-    
Other Federal Aid subtotal ►  $2,501,046  $2,000,837  $500,209 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
 
►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects
►Bridge Program / Inspections          
  Bridge Program Project # Statewide N/A Bridge Inspection Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / Off-System          
  Bridge Program 606632 Boston Region Multiple HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-23-006=W-24-016, FRUIT STREET OVER CSX & SUDBURY RIVER 3 STP-BR-OFF  $12,993,071  $10,394,457  $2,598,614 Construction
  Bridge Program 604655 Boston Region Marshfield MARSHFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-07-007, BEACH STREET OVER THE CUT RIVER 5 STP-BR-OFF  $4,189,856  $3,351,884  $837,971 Construction
  Bridge Program 607533 Boston Region Waltham WALTHAM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-04-006, WOERD AVENUE OVER CHARLES RIVER 4 STP-BR-OFF  $2,197,943  $1,758,354  $439,589 Construction
Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ►  $19,380,870  $15,504,696  $3,876,174 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS)          
  Bridge Program 604952 Boston Region Multiple LYNN- SAUGUS- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-18-016=S-05-008, ROUTE 107 OVER THE SAUGUS RIVER (AKA - BELDEN G. BLY BRIDGE) 4 NHPP-On  $51,527,391  $41,221,913  $10,305,478 Construction
  Bridge Program 604173 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE BOSTON INNER HARBOR 6 NHPP-On  $42,000,000  $33,600,000  $8,400,000 Construction / AC Year 2 of 5, Total Cost $144,066,616
Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ►  $93,527,391  $74,821,913  $18,705,478 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS)          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO N/A Description District NHPP-Off  $-  $-    $-    
Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance          
  Bridge Program 607915 Boston Region Multiple NEWTON- WELLESLEY- WESTON- BRIDGE MAINTENANCE OF N-12-063, N-12-054, N-12-055 & N-12-056 ON I-95/ROUTE 128 6 NHPP-On  $1,596,667  $1,277,334  $319,333 Construction
  Bridge Program 608521 Boston Region Salem SALEM- BRIDGE MAINTENANCE, S-01-018 (32T), (ST 114) NORTH STREET OVER (ST 107) BRIDGE STREET & MBTA 4 NHPP-Off  $2,400,000  $1,920,000  $480,000 Construction
Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ►  $3,996,667  $3,197,334  $799,333 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Interstate Pavement          
  Interstate Pavement 608823 Boston Region Multiple WELLESLEY- NEWTON- WESTON- PAVEMENT RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 6 NHPP  $6,074,640  $5,467,176  $607,464 Construction
Insterstate Pavement subtotal ►  $6,074,640  $5,467,176  $607,464 ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal
►Non-Interstate Pavement          
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608008 Boston Region Saugus SAUGUS- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 4 NHPP  $9,812,880  $7,850,304  $1,962,576 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608478 Boston Region Concord CONCORD- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 2 4 NHPP  $4,248,000  $3,398,400  $849,600 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608379 Boston Region Multiple LEXINGTON- BELMONT- ARLINGTON- CAMBRIDGE- PAVEMENT PRESERVATION ON ROUTE 2 4 NHPP  $8,437,000  $6,749,600  $1,687,400 Construction / Includes $1,040,000 of stormwater improvements
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608069 Boston Region Multiple MARSHFIELD- PEMBROKE- NORWELL- HANOVER- ROCKLAND- HINGHAM- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 3 5 NHPP  $13,876,216  $11,100,973  $2,775,243 Construction / Includes $400,000 of stormwater improvements
Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ►  $36,374,096  $29,099,277  $7,274,819 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Roadway Improvements          
  Roadway Improvements Project # MPO Multiple Description District STP  $-    $-    $-    
Roadway Improvements subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Safety Improvements          
  Safety Improvements 606381 Boston Region Multiple ARLINGTON- BELMONT- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE ON ROUTE 2  4 STP  $9,100,506  $7,280,405  $1,820,101 Construction
Safety Improvements subtotal ►  $9,100,506  $7,280,405  $1,820,101 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects
► ADA Retrofits          
  ADA Retrofits Project # MPO Municipalities Description District STP  $-    $-    $-    
ADA Retrofits subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Intersection Improvements          
  Intersection Improvements 608651 Boston Region Braintree BRAINTREE- ADAPTIVE SIGNAL CONTROLS ON ROUTE 37 (GRANITE STREET) 6 CMAQ  $500,000  $400,000  $100,000 Construction
Intersection Improvements subtotal ►  $500,000  $400,000  $100,000 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Intelligent Transportation Systems          
  Intelligent Transportation Systems Project # Statewide Multiple Description Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Roadway Reconstruction          
  Roadway Reconstruction Project # MPO N/A Description District CMAQ  $-    $-    $-    
Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects
►Bicycles and Pedestrians          
  Bicycles and Pedestrians 607732 Boston Region Multiple FRAMINGHAM- NATICK- COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, N-03-014, OVER ROUTE 9 & F-07-033=N-03-029 OVER ROUTE 30 3 CMAQ  $9,770,863  $7,816,690  $1,954,173 Construction / PSAC score 35.5
Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ►  $9,770,863  $7,816,690  $1,954,173 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Capacity          
  Capacity Project # MPO Municipalities Description District CMAQ  $-    $-    $-    
Capacity subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs
►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs          
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs Project # Statewide Multiple Description Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Other Statewide Items subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects
►Non-Federally Aided Projects          
  Non Federal Aid Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NFA  $-      $-    
Non-Federal Aid subtotal►  $-      $-   ◄100% Non-Federal
2018 Summary TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ TIP Section 4: ▼ Total of All Projects ▼    
Total ►  $276,250,576  $-    $276,250,576 ◄ Total Spending in Region
Federal Funds ►  $221,669,080    $221,669,080 ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region
Non-Federal Funds ►  $54,581,497  $-    $54,581,497 ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region
701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008.  Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road.  The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority.  For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority.  Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation.   This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website:  http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx

 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Project List (FY2018)
FTA Program Project Number Transit Agency FTA Activity Line Item Project Description Carryover (unobligated) Federal Funds State Funds TDC Local Funds Total Cost
5307                    
5307 RTD0005465 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 117A00 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE $350,000 $0 $0 $87,500 $437,500
5307 RTD0005467 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114206 ACQUIRE - SHOP EQ/SOFTWARE MAINT $40,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $50,000
5307 RTD0005469 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114220 ACQUIRE - MISC SUPPORT EQUIPMENT $27,267 $6,817 $0 $0 $34,084
5307 RTD0005473 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114206 ACQUIRE - SHOP EQUIPMENT $52,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $65,000
5307 RTD0005474 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 113410 REHAB- SHELTERS Railroad, P&R, Emerson Ave $33,600 $8,400 $0 $0 $42,000
5307 RTD0005475 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 113310 CONSTRUCT - BUS SHELTER-CATA HUB/COA $14,400 $3,600 $0 $0 $18,000
5307 RTD0005476 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 113410 REHAB/RENOVATE - BUS PASSENGER SHELTERS $9,600 $2,400 $0 $0 $12,000
5307 RTD0005989 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 113403 TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) $150,000 $37,500 $0 $0 $187,500
5307 RTD0005990 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 117C00 NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV $1,300,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $1,625,000
5307 RTD0005991 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 114200 ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES $248,415 $62,104 $0 $0 $310,519
5307 RTD0005992 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 440000 Mobility Management $25,000 $6,250 $0 $0 $31,250
5307 RTD0006350 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 121200 Revenue Vehicle Program $76,000,000 $0 $0 $19,000,000 $95,000,000
5307 RTD0006351 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 126301 Systemwide Signals Program $65,446,986 $0 $0 $16,361,747 $81,808,733
          Subtotal $143,697,268 $475,071 $0 $35,449,247 $179,621,586
5309                    
5309 RTD0005980 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 132303 Green Line Extension Project $150,000,000 $0 $0 $147,878,038 $297,878,038
          Subtotal $150,000,000 $0 $0 $147,878,038 $297,878,038
5310                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5311                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5337                    
5337 RTD0006352 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 122405 Bridge & Tunnel Program $72,000,000 $0 $0 $18,000,000 $90,000,000
5337 RTD0006353 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 123400 Stations and Facilities Program $50,401,533 $0 $0 $12,600,383 $63,001,916
5337 RTD0006354 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 124400 System Upgrades Program $20,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $25,000,000
          Subtotal $142,401,533 $0 $0 $35,600,383 $178,001,916
5339                    
5339 RTD0006355 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 111400 Bus Program $5,318,786 $0 $0 $1,329,696 $6,648,482
          Subtotal $5,318,786 $0 $0 $1,329,696 $6,648,482
5320                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Federal                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Non-Federal                    
Other Non-Federal RTD0006002 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 115320 CONSTRUCT MISC ELEC/POWER EQUIP $0 $750,000 $0 $0 $750,000
          Subtotal $0 $750,000 $0 $0 $750,000
          Total $441,417,587 $1,225,071 $0 $220,257,364 $662,900,022
Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount

 

2019 Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program      
     
Amendment /
Adjustment Type ▼
STIP                             Program ▼ MassDOT Project ID Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ Municipality Name ▼ MassDOT                                                                                                              Project                                                                                               Description MassDOT  District Funding                       Source Total Programmed                Funds Federal                    Funds Non-Federal                        Funds Additional Information ▼                                   Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information
►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects
►Regionally Prioritized Projects          
  Roadway reconstruction program 607428 Boston Region Multiple HOPEDALE- MILFORD- RESURFACING & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (MAIN STREET), FROM WATER STREET WEST TO APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET WEST OF THE MILFORD/HOPEDALE T.L AND THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 140. 3 HSIP  $1,940,476  $1,746,428  $194,048 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP Total Cost = $2,727,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 54
  Roadway reconstruction program 607428 Boston Region Multiple HOPEDALE- MILFORD- RESURFACING & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (MAIN STREET), FROM WATER STREET WEST TO APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET WEST OF THE MILFORD/HOPEDALE T.L AND THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 140. 3 CMAQ  $787,405  $629,924  $157,481 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP Total Cost = $2,727,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 54
  Roadway reconstruction program 607652 Boston Region Everett EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET 4 HSIP  $1,448,825  $1,303,943  $144,883 Cosntruction; CMAQ+STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $16,599,002; MPO Evaluation Score = 73
  Roadway reconstruction program 607652 Boston Region Everett EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET 4 CMAQ  $1,275,588  $1,020,470  $255,118 Cosntruction; CMAQ+STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $16,599,002; MPO Evaluation Score = 73
  Roadway reconstruction program 607652 Boston Region Everett EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET 4 TAP  $724,412  $579,530  $144,882 Cosntruction; CMAQ+STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $16,599,002; MPO Evaluation Score = 73; TAP project proponent = Everett
  Roadway reconstruction program 607652 Boston Region Everett EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET 4 STP  $13,150,177  $10,520,142  $2,630,035 Cosntruction; CMAQ+STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $16,599,002; MPO Evaluation Score = 73
  Roadway reconstruction program 606043 Boston Region Hopkinton HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 3 HSIP  $1,275,206  $1,147,685  $127,521 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,174,400
  Roadway reconstruction program 606043 Boston Region Hopkinton HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 3 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,174,400
  Roadway reconstruction program 606043 Boston Region Hopkinton HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 3 TAP  $5,899,194  $4,719,355  $1,179,839 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,174,400; TAP project proponent = Hopkinton
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 1570 Boston Region Multiple GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 6 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444 Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 4 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local
contributions
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 1570 Boston Region Multiple GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 6 STP  $27,072,780  $21,658,224  $5,414,556 Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 4 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local
contributions
  Roadway reconstruction program 605034 Boston Region Natick NATICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET), FROM NORTH AVENUE TO THE WAYLAND T.L. 3 CMAQ  $2,415,334  $1,932,267  $483,067 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $12,688,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 60
  Roadway reconstruction program 605034 Boston Region Natick NATICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET), FROM NORTH AVENUE TO THE WAYLAND T.L. 3 TAP  $1,318,933  $1,055,146  $263,787 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $12,688,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 60
  Roadway reconstruction program 605034 Boston Region Natick NATICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET), FROM NORTH AVENUE TO THE WAYLAND T.L. 3 STP  $8,953,733  $7,162,986  $1,790,747 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $12,688,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 60
  Roadway reconstruction program 605789 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD 6 STP  $7,348,506  $5,878,805  $1,469,701 Construction; STP+Earmark Total Cost = $24,792,845 ; MPO Evaluation Score = 59
  Roadway reconstruction program 606635 Boston Region Multiple NEEDHAM-NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO REOUT 9 (NEWTON) 6 HSIP  $2,319,644  $2,087,680  $231,964 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 1 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75
  Roadway reconstruction program 606635 Boston Region Multiple NEEDHAM-NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO REOUT 9 (NEWTON) 6 CMAQ  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 1 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75
  Roadway reconstruction program 606635 Boston Region Multiple NEEDHAM-NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO REOUT 9 (NEWTON) 6 TAP  $1,546,492  $1,237,194  $309,298 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 1 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75; TAP project proponent = Needham
  Roadway reconstruction program 606635 Boston Region Multiple NEEDHAM-NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO REOUT 9 (NEWTON) 6 STP  $4,851,064  $3,880,851  $970,213 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 1 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75
Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ►  $6,176,706  $5,280,295  $896,411 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis        
Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ►  $98,754,989  $98,794,261 ◄Total Budget  $39,272 Target Funds Available
Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. STP programmed ►  $61,376,260  $80,826,690 ◄ Max STP  $19,450,430 STP available
HSIP programmed ►  $6,984,151  $4,296,710 ◄ Min. HSIP  $(2,687,441) HSIP recommended met
CMAQ programmed ►  $20,905,547  $10,741,776 ◄ Min. CMAQ  $(10,163,771) CMAQ recommended met
TAP programmed ►  $9,489,031  $2,929,085 ◄ Min. TAP  $(6,559,946) TAP amount exceeded!
Remaining HSIP, CMAQ, and TAP Funds  $39,272      
►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects
►Other Federal Aid          
  Earmark Discretionary 605789 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD  6 HPP  $5,007,375  $4,005,900  $1,001,475 Construction; HPP 4284 (MA203); STP+Earmarks Total Cost = $24,792,845 
  Earmark Discretionary 605789 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD  6 HPP  $2,703,983  $2,163,186  $540,797 Construction; HPP 756 (MA126); STP+Earmarks Total Cost = $24,792,845 
  Earmark Discretionary 605789 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD  6 HPP  $6,259,219  $5,007,375  $1,251,844 Construction; (MA154); STP+Earmarks Total Cost = $24,792,845 
  Earmark Discretionary 605789 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD  6 HPP  $3,473,764  $2,779,011  $694,753 Construction; (MA194); STP+Earmarks Total Cost = $24,792,845 
  Earmark Discretionary 607330 Boston Region Milton MILTON- DECK RECONSTRUCTION OVER SE EXPRESSWAY (EAST MILTON SQUARE), INCLUDES PARKING & NEW LANDSCAPED AREA 4 HPP  $1,502,213  $1,201,770  $300,443 Construction; (MA125)
  Earmark Discretionary 607330 Boston Region Milton MILTON- DECK RECONSTRUCTION OVER SE EXPRESSWAY (EAST MILTON SQUARE), INCLUDES PARKING & NEW LANDSCAPED AREA 4 HPP  $1,251,844  $1,001,475  $250,369 Construction; (MA134)
  Earmark Discretionary 606316 Boston Region Brookline BROOKLINE- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-27-016, OVER MBTA OFF CARLTON STREET 6 HPP  $751,106  $600,885  $150,221 Demo ID: MA 149

Repurposed earmark, formerly design and construct signal crossing and other safety improvements to Emerald Necklace Greenway Bicycle Trail, Town of Brookline
Other Federal Aid subtotal ►  $20,949,502  $16,759,602  $4,189,900 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
 
►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects
►Bridge Program / Inspections          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / Off-System          
  Bridge Program 608079 Boston Region Sharon SHARON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-09-003 (40N), MASKWONICUT STREET OVER AMTRAK/MBTA 5 STP-BR-OFF  $5,219,900  $4,175,920  $1,043,980 Construction
  Bridge Program 608255 Boston Region Stow STOW- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-29-011, BOX MILL ROAD OVER ELIZABETH BROOK 3 STP-BR-OFF  $1,482,000  $1,185,600  $296,400 Construction
Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ►  $6,701,900  $5,361,520  $1,340,380 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS)          
  Bridge Program 604173 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE BOSTON INNER HARBOR 6 NHPP-On  $42,000,000  $33,600,000  $8,400,000 AC Year 3 of 5, Total Cost $144,066,616
Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ►  $42,000,000  $33,600,000  $8,400,000 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS)          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO N/A Description District NHPP-Off  $-  $-    $-    
Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance          
  Bridge Program 608234 Boston Region Multiple BOSTON- RANDOLPH- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF 3 BRIDGES: B-16-165, R-01-005 & R-01-007 6 NHPP-On  $2,303,571  $1,842,857  $460,714 Construction
Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ►  $2,303,571  $1,842,857  $460,714 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Interstate Pavement          
  Interstate Pavement 608219 Boston Region Multiple READING- WAKEFIELD- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 4 NHPP  $4,123,392  $3,711,053  $412,339 Construction
Insterstate Pavement subtotal ►  $4,123,392  $3,711,053  $412,339 ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal
►Non-Interstate Pavement          
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608467 Boston Region Marlborough MARLBOROUGH- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20 3 NHPP  $9,940,320  $7,952,256  $1,988,064 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608468 Boston Region Multiple PEABODY- DANVERS- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 4 NHPP  $11,597,040  $9,277,632  $2,319,408 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608528 Boston Region Multiple WESTON- WALTHAM- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20 4 NHPP  $12,026,560  $9,621,248  $2,405,312 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608587 Boston Region Dedham DEDHAM- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK OF BRIDGE STREET (ROUTE 109) AND AMES STREET 6 NHPP  $5,424,717  $4,339,774  $1,084,943 Construction
Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ►  $38,988,637  $31,190,910  $7,797,727 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Roadway Improvements          
  Roadway Improvements 608214 Boston Region Winchester WINCHESTER- STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 3  4 STP  $232,960  $186,368  $46,592 Construction
  Roadway Improvements 608599 Boston Region Multiple CANTON- SHARON- FOXBOROUGH- NORWOOD-WALPOLE- STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 1, ROUTE 1A & INTERSTATE 95 5 STP  $526,235  $420,988  $105,247 Construction
Roadway Improvements subtotal ►  $759,195  $607,356  $151,839 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Safety Improvements          
  Safety Improvements 608608 Boston Region Braintree BRAINTREE- HIGHWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT I-93/ROUTE 3 INTERCHANGE 6 STP  $7,008,503  $5,606,802  $1,401,701 Construction / Total Project Cost $9,697,229 / AC YR 1 of 2
  Safety Improvements 608205 Boston Region Multiple READING TO LYNNFIELD- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON A SECTION OF I-95 (SR 128) 4 HSIP  $4,513,288  $4,061,959  $451,329 Construction
  Safety Improvements 608206 Boston Region Multiple CHELSEA TO DANVERS- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON A SECTION OF US ROUTE 1 4 HSIP  $7,195,084  $6,475,576  $719,508 Construction
Safety Improvements subtotal ►  $18,716,875  $16,144,337  $2,572,538 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects
► ADA Retrofits          
  ADA Retrofits Project # Statewide Multiple Description 1 STP  $-    $-    $-    
ADA Retrofits subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Intersection Improvements          
  Intersection Improvements 607759 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE VFW PARKWAY & SPRING STREET 6 HSIP  $974,815  $877,334  $97,482 Construction / PSAC score 39
  Intersection Improvements 607763 Boston Region Milton MILTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT 2 LOCATIONS: SR 138 (BLUE HILL AVENUE) AT ATHERTON STREET & BRADLEE ROAD AND SR 138 (BLUE HILL AVENUE) AT MILTON STREET & DOLLAR LANE 6 HSIP  $1,188,000  $1,069,200  $118,800 Construction / PSAC score 44
  Intersection Improvements 608052 Boston Region Norwood NORWOOD- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT US 1 (PROVIDENCE HIGHWAY) & MORSE STREET 5 HSIP  $974,815  $877,334  $97,482 Construction / PSAC score 50
  Intersection Improvements 607748 Boston Region Acton ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON SR 2 & SR 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AT PIPER ROAD & TAYLOR ROAD 3 HSIP  $1,400,000  $1,260,000  $140,000 Construction / PSAC score 58
  Intersection Improvements 608755 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT MORTON STREET AND HARVARD STREET 6 HSIP  $1,500,000  $1,350,000  $150,000 Construction
  Intersection Improvements 607761 Boston Region Swampscott SWAMPSCOTT- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT SR 1A (PARADISE ROAD) AT SWAMPSCOTT MALL 4 HSIP  $2,000,000  $1,800,000  $200,000 Construction / PSAC score 50
Intersection Improvements subtotal ►  $8,037,630  $7,233,867  $803,763 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Intelligent Transportation Systems          
  Intelligent Transportation Systems Project # Statewide Multiple Description Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Roadway Reconstruction          
  Roadway Reconstruction Project # MPO N/A Description District CMAQ  $-    $-    $-    
Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects
►Bicycles and Pedestrians          
  Bicycles and Pedestrians 607888 Boston Region Multiple BOSTON- BROOKLINE- MULTI-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION ON NEW FENWAY  6 CMAQ  $1,770,722  $1,416,578  $354,144 Construction / PSAC score 41
  Bicycles and Pedestrians 606223 Boston Region Multiple ACTON- CONCORD- BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDES REPLACING BRIDGE C-19-037, RAIL TRAIL OVER NASHOBA BROOK, NEW BRIDGE C-19-039, RAIL TRAIL OVER ROUTE 2 & NEW CULVERT C-19-040, ROUTE 2 OVER WILDLIFE CROSSING (PHASE II-B) 4 CMAQ  $9,495,746  $7,596,597  $1,899,149 Construction / PSAC score 31.5
Bicycles and Pedestrians 606316 Boston Region Brookline BROOKLINE- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-27-016, OVER MBTA OFF CARLTON STREET 6 CMAQ  $3,087,238  $2,469,790  $617,448 Construction / Total Project Cost $3,838,344 w/ additional funding from earmark at $751,106
Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ►  $11,266,468  $9,013,174  $2,253,294 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Capacity          
  Capacity Project # MPO Municipalities Description District CMAQ  $-    $-    $-    
Capacity subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs
►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs          
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs Project # Statewide Multiple ABP GANS Repayment  Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
  Earmark Discretionary BN0008 Boston Region Newburyport Parker River National Wildlife Refuge - Replace Hellcat Trail Boardwalk 4 Other FA  $1,200,000  $960,000  $240,000 Transfer to Eastern Federal Lands
Other Statewide Items subtotal ►  $1,200,000  $960,000  $240,000 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects
►Non-Federally Aided Projects          
  Non Federal Aid Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NFA  $-      $-    
Non-Federal Aid subtotal►  $-      $-   ◄100% Non-Federal
2019 Summary TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ TIP Section 4: ▼ Total of All Projects ▼    
Total ►  $161,223,876  $-    $161,223,876 ◄ Total Spending in Region
Federal Funds ►  $131,704,971    $131,704,971 ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region
Non-Federal Funds ►  $29,518,906  $-    $29,518,906 ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region
701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008.  Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road.  The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority.  For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority.  Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation.   This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website:  http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx

 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Project List (FY2019)
FTA Program Project Number Transit Agency FTA Activity Line Item Project Description Carryover (unobligated) Federal Funds State Funds TDC Local Funds Total Cost
5307                    
5307 RTD0005466 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 117A00 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 2017 - $92,000; 2018 - $450,000 $542,000 $0 $0 $135,500 $677,500
5307 RTD0005470 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114206 ACQUIRE - SHOP EQ/COMPUTER/SFTWR 2018 - $44,000 $44,000 $11,000 $0 $0 $55,000
5307 RTD0005471 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114220 ACQUIRE - MISC SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 2018 - $30,055 $30,055 $7,514 $0 $0 $37,569
5307 RTD0005993 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 113303 TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT): Facil. Improvements 2018 - $150,000 $150,000 $37,500 $0 $0 $187,500
5307 RTD0005994 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 117C00 NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV 2018 - $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $1,625,000
5307 RTD0005995 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 114200 ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES 2018 - $248,415 $248,415 $62,104 $0 $0 $310,519
5307 RTD0005996 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 440000 Mobility Management 2018 - $25,000 $25,000 $6,250 $0 $0 $31,250
5307 RTD0006356 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 121200 Revenue Vehicle Program $112,000,000 $0 $0 $28,000,000 $140,000,000
5307 RTD0006357 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 123400 Stations and Facilities Program $31,445,210 $0 $0 $7,861,303 $39,306,513
          Subtotal $145,784,680 $449,368 $0 $35,996,803 $182,230,851
5309                    
5309 RTD0005979 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 132303 Green Line Extension Project $150,000,000 $0 $0 $147,848,038 $297,848,038
          Subtotal $150,000,000 $0 $0 $147,848,038 $297,848,038
5310                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5311                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5337                    
5337 RTD0006358 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 123400 Stations and Facilities Program $136,853,672 $0 $0 $34,213,418 $171,067,090
5337 RTD0006359 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 124400 System Upgrades Program 2018 - $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $10,000,000
          Subtotal $144,853,672 $0 $0 $36,213,418 $181,067,090
5339                    
5339 RTD0006360 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 111400 Bus Program $5,434,322 $0 $0 $1,358,581 $6,792,903
          Subtotal $5,434,322 $0 $0 $1,358,581 $6,792,903
5320                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Federal                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Non-Federal                    
Other Non-Federal RTD0006089 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 111209 BUY REPLACEMENT TROLLEY BUS $0 $900,000 $0 $0 $900,000
          Subtotal $0 $900,000 $0 $0 $900,000
          Total $446,072,674 $1,349,368 $0 $221,416,840 $668,838,882
Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount

 

2020 Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program      
     
Amendment /
Adjustment Type ▼
STIP                             Program ▼ MassDOT Project ID Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ Municipality Name ▼ MassDOT                                                                                                              Project                                                                                               Description MassDOT  District Funding                       Source Total Programmed                Funds Federal                    Funds Non-Federal                        Funds Additional Information ▼                                   Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information
►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects
►Regionally Prioritized Projects          
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 1570 Boston Region Multiple GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 6 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444 Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 5 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local
contributions
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 1570 Boston Region Multiple GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 6 STP  $21,872,780  $17,498,224  $4,374,556 Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 5 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local
contributions
  Roadway reconstruction program 604123 Boston Region Ashland ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. 3 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $14,636,338; MPO Evaluation Score = 54
  Roadway reconstruction program 604123 Boston Region Ashland ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. 3 TAP  $2,106,481  $1,685,185  $421,296 Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $14,636,338; MPO Evaluation Score = 54; TAP project proponent = Ashland
  Roadway reconstruction program 604123 Boston Region Ashland ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. 3 STP  $11,529,857  $9,223,886  $2,305,971 Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $14,636,338; MPO Evaluation Score = 54
  Roadway reconstruction program 602077 Boston Region Lynn LYNN- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 129 (LYNNFIELD STREET), FROM GREAT WOODS ROAD TO WYOMA SQUARE  4 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $4,755,714; MPO Evaluation Score = 38
  Roadway reconstruction program 602077 Boston Region Lynn LYNN- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 129 (LYNNFIELD STREET), FROM GREAT WOODS ROAD TO WYOMA SQUARE  4 STP  $3,755,714  $3,004,571  $751,143 Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $4,755,714; MPO Evaluation Score = 38
  Roadway reconstruction program 602261 Boston Region Walpole WALPOLE- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 1A (MAIN STREET), FROM THE NORWOOD T.L. TO ROUTE 27, INCLUDES W-03-024 OVER THE NEPONSET RIVER 5 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $17,390,216; MPO Evaluation Score = 51
  Roadway reconstruction program 602261 Boston Region Walpole WALPOLE- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 1A (MAIN STREET), FROM THE NORWOOD T.L. TO ROUTE 27, INCLUDES W-03-024 OVER THE NEPONSET RIVER 5 TAP  $1,858,437  $1,486,750  $371,687 Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $17,390,216; MPO Evaluation Score = 51; TAP project proponent = Walpole
  Roadway reconstruction program 602261 Boston Region Walpole WALPOLE- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 1A (MAIN STREET), FROM THE NORWOOD T.L. TO ROUTE 27, INCLUDES W-03-024 OVER THE NEPONSET RIVER 5 STP  $14,531,779  $11,625,423  $2,906,356 Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $17,390,216; MPO Evaluation Score = 51
  Roadway reconstruction program 606453 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET  6 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,214,319; MPO Evaluation Score = 58
  Roadway reconstruction program 606453 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET  6 TAP  $812,432  $649,946  $162,486 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,214,319; MPO Evaluation Score = 58; TAP project proponent = Boston
  Roadway reconstruction program 606453 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET  6 STP  $6,401,887  $5,121,510  $1,280,377 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,214,319; MPO Evaluation Score = 58
  Roadway reconstruction program 606226 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE 6 STP  $7,000,000  $5,600,000  $1,400,000 Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 1 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515
  Roadway reconstruction program 606635 Boston Region Multiple NEEDHAM- NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO ROUTE 9 (NEWTON) 6 HSIP  $2,319,644  $2,087,680  $231,964 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 2 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75
  Roadway reconstruction program 606635 Boston Region Multiple NEEDHAM- NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO ROUTE 9 (NEWTON) 6 STP  $8,397,556  $6,718,045  $1,679,511 Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 2 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75
Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ►  $98,013,787  $78,642,994  $19,370,793 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis        
Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ►  $98,013,787  $98,029,447 ◄Total Budget  $15,660 Target Funds Available
Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. STP programmed ►  $73,489,573  $80,061,875 ◄ Max STP  $6,572,302 STP available
HSIP programmed ►  $2,319,644  $4,296,710 ◄ Min. HSIP  $1,977,066 HSIP recommended not met
CMAQ programmed ►  $17,427,220  $10,741,776 ◄ Min. CMAQ  $(6,685,444) CMAQ recommended met
TAP programmed ►  $4,777,350  $2,929,085 ◄ Min. TAP  $(1,848,265) TAP amount exceeded!
Remaining HSIP, CMAQ, and TAP Funds  $15,660      
►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects
►Other Federal Aid          
  Earmark Discretionary Project # Boston Municipalities Description District HPP  $-    $-    $-    
  Earmark Discretionary Project # Boston Municipalities Description District HPP  $-    $-    $-    
Other Federal Aid subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
 
►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects
►Bridge Program / Inspections          
  Bridge Program Project # N/A Multiple Description Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / Off-System          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO N/A Description District STP-BR-OFF  $-  $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS)          
  Bridge Program 605342 Boston Region Stow STOW- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-29-001, (ST 62) GLEASONDALE ROAD OVER THE ASSABET RIVER 3 NHPP-On  $6,706,560  $5,365,248  $1,341,312 Construction
  Bridge Program 608614 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, B-16-179, AUSTIN STREET OVER I-93 RAMPS, MBTA COMMUTER RAIL AND ORANGE LINE  6 NHPP-On  $20,606,400  $16,485,120  $4,121,280 Construction
  Bridge Program 604173 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE BOSTON INNER HARBOR 6 NHPP-On  $35,000,000  $28,000,000  $7,000,000 Construction / AC Year 4 of 5, Total Cost $144,066,616
Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ►  $62,312,960  $49,850,368  $12,462,592 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS)          
  Bridge Program 608009 Boston Region Boxborough BOXBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-18-002, ROUTE 111 OVER I-495 3 NHPP-Off  $9,147,500  $7,318,000  $1,829,500 AC Year 1 of 2, Total Cost $14,295,000
Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ►  $9,147,500  $7,318,000  $1,829,500 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance          
  Bridge Program 608596 Boston Region Essex ESSEX- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, E-11-001 (2TV), ROUTE 133\MAIN STREET OVER ESSEX RIVER 4 NHPP-Off  $2,400,000  $1,920,000  $480,000  
Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ►  $2,400,000  $1,920,000  $480,000 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Interstate Pavement          
  Interstate Pavement 608208 Boston Region Multiple QUINCY- MILTON- BOSTON- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE & RELATED WORK ON I-93 6 NHPP  $24,264,576  $21,838,118  $2,426,458 Construction / Includes $540,000 of stormwater improvements
Insterstate Pavement subtotal ►  $24,264,576  $21,838,118  $2,426,458 ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal
►Non-Interstate Pavement          
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608480 Boston Region Multiple FOXBOROUGH- WALPOLE- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 5 NHPP  $8,063,129  $6,450,503  $1,612,626 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608484 Boston Region Multiple CANTON- MILTON- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 138 6 NHPP  $15,343,776  $12,275,021  $3,068,755 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608482 Boston Region Multiple CAMBRIDGE- SOMERVILLE- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 28 6 NHPP  $7,761,096  $6,208,877  $1,552,219 Construction
Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ►  $31,168,001  $24,934,401  $6,233,600 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Roadway Improvements          
  Roadway Improvements Project # MPO N/A Description District STP  $-    $-    $-    
Roadway Improvements subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Safety Improvements          
  Safety Improvements 608608 Boston Region Braintree BRAINTREE- HIGHWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT I-93/ROUTE 3 INTERCHANGE 6 STP  $2,688,726  $2,150,981  $537,745 Construction / Total Project Cost $9,697,229 / AC YR 2 of 2
  Safety Improvements 608611 Boston Region Multiple CANTON- MILTON- RANDOLPH- REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION OF THE HIGHWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM AT THE ROUTE 24/ROUTE 1/I-93 INTERCHANGE 6 HSIP  $9,434,070  $8,490,663  $943,407 Construction
Safety Improvements subtotal ►  $12,122,796  $10,641,644  $1,481,152 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects
► ADA Retrofits          
  ADA Retrofits Project # MPO Municipalities Description District STP  $-    $-    $-    
ADA Retrofits subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Intersection Improvements          
  Intersection Improvements 608562 Boston Region Somerville SOMERVILLE- SIGNAL AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT ON I-93 AT MYSTIC AVENUE AND MCGRATH HIGHWAY (TOP 200 CRASH LOCATION) 4 HSIP  $2,688,000  $2,419,200  $268,800 Construction / PSAC score 68
  Intersection Improvements 608564 Boston Region Watertown WATERTOWN- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 16 AND GALEN STREET 6 HSIP  $2,688,000  $2,419,200  $268,800 Construction / PSAC score 56
Intersection Improvements subtotal ►  $5,376,000  $4,838,400  $537,600 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Intelligent Transportation Systems          
  Intelligent Transportation Systems Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Roadway Reconstruction          
  Roadway Reconstruction 608835 Boston Region Medford MEDFORD- IMPROVEMENTS AT BROOKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) 4 TAP  $1,200,000  $960,000  $240,000 Construction / TAP project proponent is Medford
  Roadway Reconstruction 608743 Boston Region Salem SALEM- IMPROVEMENTS AT BATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) 4 TAP  $937,500  $750,000  $187,500 Construction / TAP project proponent is Salem
  Roadway Reconstruction 608829 Boston Region Stoughton STOUGHTON - IMPROVEMENTS AT WEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) 5 TAP  $2,226,600  $1,781,280  $445,320 Construction / TAP project proponent is Stoughton
  Roadway Reconstruction 608791 Boston Region Winchester WINCHESTER- IMPROVEMENTS AT VINSON-OWEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) 4 TAP  $1,666,200  $1,332,960  $333,240 Construction / TAP project proponent is Winchester
  Roadway Reconstruction 607977 Boston Region Multiple HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE 3 NHPP  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 1 of 6 / PSAC score 49
Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ►  $7,030,300  $5,624,240  $1,406,060 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects
►Bicycles and Pedestrians          
  Bicycles and Pedestrians Project # MPO N/A Description District CMAQ  $-    $-    $-    
Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Capacity          
  Capacity Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Capacity subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs
►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs          
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs Project # Statewide Multiple Description Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Other Statewide Items subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects
►Non-Federally Aided Projects          
  Non Federal Aid 607977 Boston Region Multiple HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE 3 NFA  $18,112,483    $18,112,483 Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 1 of 6 / PSAC score 49
Non-Federal Aid subtotal►  $18,112,483    $18,112,483 ◄100% Non-Federal
2020 Summary TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ TIP Section 4: ▼ Total of All Projects ▼    
Total ►  $251,835,920  $18,112,483  $269,948,403 ◄ Total Spending in Region
Federal Funds ►  $205,608,165    $205,608,165 ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region
Non-Federal Funds ►  $46,227,755  $18,112,483  $64,340,238 ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region
701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008.  Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road.  The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority.  For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority.  Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation.   This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website:  http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx

 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Project List (FY2020)
FTA Program Project Number Transit Agency FTA Activity Line Item Project Description Carryover (unobligated) Federal Funds State Funds TDC Local Funds Total Cost
5307                    
5307 RTD0005472 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 117A00 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 2019 - $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $87,500 $437,500
5307 RTD0005477 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114206 ACQUIRE - SHOP EQ/COMP/SFTWR 2019 - $40,000 $40,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $50,000
5307 RTD0005478 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114220 ACQUIRE - MISC SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 2019 - $11,296 $11,296 $2,824 $0 $0 $14,120
5307 RTD0005997 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 114200 ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES 2019 - $248,415 $248,415 $62,104 $0 $0 $310,519
5307 RTD0005998 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 440000 Mobility Management 2019 - $25,000 $25,000 $6,250 $0 $0 $31,250
5307 RTD0005999 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 117C00 NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV 2019 - $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $1,625,000
5307 RTD0006000 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 113303 TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) 2019 - $150,000 $150,000 $37,500 $0 $0 $187,500
5307 RTD0006361 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 121200 Revenue Vehicle Program $40,000,000 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $50,000,000
5307 RTD0006362 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 123400 Stations and Facilities Program $44,000,000 $0 $0 $11,000,000 $55,000,000
5307 RTD0006363 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 126301 Systemwide Signals Program $61,840,976 $0 $0 $15,460,244 $77,301,220
          Subtotal $147,965,687 $443,678 $0 $36,547,744 $184,957,109
5309                    
5309 RTD0005987 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 132303 Green Line Extension Project $150,000,000 $0 $0 $147,848,038 $297,848,038
          Subtotal $150,000,000 $0 $0 $147,848,038 $297,848,038
5310                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5311                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5337                    
5337 RTD0006364 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 122405 Bridge & Tunnel Program $24,000,000 $0 $0 $6,000,000 $30,000,000
5337 RTD0006365 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 123402 Elevator Program $48,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $60,000,000
5337 RTD0006366 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 123400 Stations and Facilities Program $47,347,989 $0 $0 $11,836,997 $59,184,986
5337 RTD0006367 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 124400 System Upgrades Program $28,000,000 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $35,000,000
          Subtotal $147,347,989 $0 $0 $36,836,997 $184,184,986
5339                    
5339 RTD0006368 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 111400 Bus Program $5,552,214 $0 $0 $1,388,053 $6,940,267
          Subtotal $5,552,214 $0 $0 $1,388,053 $6,940,267
5320                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Federal                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Non-Federal                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
          Total $450,865,890 $443,678 $0 $222,620,832 $673,930,400
Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount

 

2021 Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program      
     
Amendment /
Adjustment Type ▼
STIP                             Program ▼ MassDOT Project ID Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ Municipality Name ▼ MassDOT                                                                                                              Project                                                                                               Description MassDOT  District Funding                       Source Total Programmed                Funds Federal                    Funds Non-Federal                        Funds Additional Information ▼                                   Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information
►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects
►Regionally Prioritized Projects          
  Roadway reconstruction program 608228 Boston Region Framingham FRAMINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION AVENUE, FROM PROCTOR STREET TO MAIN STREET 3 HSIP  $1,509,587  $1,358,628  $150,959 Construction; STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $10,304,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 58
  Roadway reconstruction program 608228 Boston Region Framingham FRAMINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION AVENUE, FROM PROCTOR STREET TO MAIN STREET 3 TAP  $1,006,391  $805,113  $201,278 Construction; STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $10,304,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 58; TAP project proponent = Framingham
  Roadway reconstruction program 608228 Boston Region Framingham FRAMINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION AVENUE, FROM PROCTOR STREET TO MAIN STREET 3 STP  $7,788,903  $6,231,122  $1,557,781 Construction; STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $10,304,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 58
  Intersection improvements program 606130 Boston Region Norwood NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1A & UPLAND ROAD/WASHINGTON STREET & PROSPECT STREET/FULTON STREET 5 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $3,668,437; MPO Evaluation Score = 53
  Intersection improvements program 606130 Boston Region Norwood NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1A & UPLAND ROAD/WASHINGTON STREET & PROSPECT STREET/FULTON STREET 5 STP  $2,668,437  $2,134,750  $533,687 Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $3,668,437; MPO Evaluation Score = 53
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 608347 Boston Region Beverly BEVERLY- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ 3 LOCATIONS: CABOT STREET (ROUTE 1A/97) @ DODGE STREET (ROUTE 1A), COUNTY WAY, LONGMEADOW ROAD & SCOTT STREET, MCKAY STREET @ BALCH STREET & VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE (ROUTE 1A) AT RANTOUL, CABOT, WATER & FRONT STREETS 4 HSIP  $2,339,729  $2,105,756  $233,973 Construction; HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $3,360,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 63
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 608347 Boston Region Beverly BEVERLY- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ 3 LOCATIONS: CABOT STREET (ROUTE 1A/97) @ DODGE STREET (ROUTE 1A), COUNTY WAY, LONGMEADOW ROAD & SCOTT STREET, MCKAY STREET @ BALCH STREET & VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE (ROUTE 1A) AT RANTOUL, CABOT, WATER & FRONT STREETS 4 CMAQ  $1,020,271  $816,217  $204,054 Construction; HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $3,360,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 63
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs BN0009 Boston Region Multiple COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM NA CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Planning, Design, or Construction; Set Aside for LRTP Clean Air and Mobility Program
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 1570 Boston Region Multiple GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 6 CMAQ  $10,000,000  $8,000,000  $2,000,000 Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 6 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local
contributions
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs 1570 Boston Region Multiple GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 6 STP  $19,700,000  $15,760,000  $3,940,000 Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 6 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local
contributions
  Roadway reconstruction program 606501 Boston Region Holbrook HOLBROOK- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION STREET (ROUTE 139), FROM LINFIELD STREET TO CENTRE STREET/WATER STREET 5 TAP  $289,088  $231,270  $57,818 Construction; TAP+STP+Earmark Total Cost = $2,890,880; MPO Evaluation Score = 45; TAP project proponent = Holbrook
  Roadway reconstruction program 606501 Boston Region Holbrook HOLBROOK- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION STREET (ROUTE 139), FROM LINFIELD STREET TO CENTRE STREET/WATER STREET 5 STP  $1,074,542  $859,634  $214,908 Construction; TAP+STP+Earmark Total Cost = $2,890,880; MPO Evaluation Score = 45
  Roadway reconstruction program 606226 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE 6 TAP  $2,183,253  $1,746,602  $436,651 Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 2 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515; TAP project proponent = Boston
  Roadway reconstruction program 606226 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE 6 STP  $24,997,494  $19,997,995  $4,999,499 Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 2 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515
  Bridge Program 604996 Boston Region Woburn WOBURN- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-43-017, NEW BOSTON STREET OVER MBTA 4 STP  $17,026,434  $13,621,147  $3,405,287 Construction; Total Cost = $17,026,434; MPO Evaluation Score = 55
  Roadway reconstruction program 601607 Boston Region Hull HULL- RECONSTRUCTION OF ATLANTIC AVENUE AND RELATED WORK FROM NANTASKET AVENUE TO COHASSET TOWN LINE  5 STP  $6,693,980  $5,355,184  $1,338,796 Construction; Total Cost = $6,693,980; MPO Evaluation Score = 44
Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ►  $100,298,109  $80,623,419  $19,674,690 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis        
Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ►  $100,298,109  $100,298,110 ◄Total Budget  $1 Target Funds Available
Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. STP programmed ►  $79,949,790  $82,330,538 ◄ Max STP  $2,380,748 STP available
HSIP programmed ►  $3,849,316  $4,296,710 ◄ Min. HSIP  $447,394 HSIP recommended not met
CMAQ programmed ►  $13,020,271  $10,741,776 ◄ Min. CMAQ  $(2,278,495) CMAQ recommended met
TAP programmed ►  $3,478,732  $2,929,085 ◄ Min. TAP  $(549,647) TAP amount exceeded!
Remaining HSIP, CMAQ, and TAP Funds  $1      
►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects
►Other Federal Aid          
  Earmark Discretionary 606226 Boston Region Municipalities BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE 6 HPP  $126,970  $101,576  $25,394 Demo ID MA183
  Earmark Discretionary 606226 Boston Region Municipalities BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE 6 HPP  $8,451,960  $6,761,568  $1,690,392 Demo ID MA210
  Earmark Discretionary 606501 Boston Region Municipalities HOLBROOK- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION STREET (ROUTE 139), FROM LINFIELD STREET TO CENTRE STREET/WATER STREET 5 HPP  $1,527,250  $1,221,800  $305,450 Demo ID MA177
Other Federal Aid subtotal ►  $10,106,180  $8,084,944  $2,021,236 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
 
►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects
►Bridge Program / Inspections          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / Off-System          
  Bridge Program 608637 Boston Region Maynard MAYNARD- BRIDGE REPLACMENT, M-10-006, CARRYING FLORIDA ROAD OVER THE ASSABET RIVER 3 STP-BR-OFF  $1,589,840  $1,271,872  $317,968 Construction
Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ►  $1,589,840  $1,271,872  $317,968 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS)          
  Bridge Program 608703 Boston Region Wilmington WILMINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-38-029 (2KV), ST 129 LOWELL STREET OVER I 93 4 NHPP-On  $16,546,880  $13,237,504  $3,309,376 Construction
  Bridge Program 607327 Boston Region Wilmington WILMINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-38-002, ROUTE 38 (MAIN STREET) OVER THE B&M RAILROAD 4 NHPP-On  $10,760,960  $8,608,768  $2,152,192 Construction
  Bridge Program 604173 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE BOSTON INNER HARBOR 6 NHPP-On  $18,666,616  $14,933,293  $3,733,323 Construction / AC Year 5 of 5, Total Cost $144,066,616
Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ►  $45,974,456  $36,779,565  $9,194,891 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS)          
  Bridge Program 608522 Boston Region Middleton MIDDLETON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-20-003, ROUTE 62 (MAPLE STREET) OVER IPSWICH RIVER 4 NHPP-Off  $3,933,440  $3,146,752  $786,688 Construction
  Bridge Program 608596 Boston Region Essex ESSEX- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, E-11-001 (2TV), ROUTE 133\MAIN STREET OVER ESSEX RIVER 4 NHPP-Off  $4,028,000  $3,222,400  $805,600 Construction
  Bridge Program 608009 Boston Region Boxborough BOXBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-18-002, ROUTE 111 OVER I-495 3 NHPP-Off  $5,147,500  $4,118,000  $1,029,500 Construction / AC Year 2 of 2, Total Cost $14,295,000
Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ►  $13,108,940  $10,487,152  $2,621,788 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP-On  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Interstate Pavement          
  Interstate Pavement Project # MPO Multiple Description District NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Insterstate Pavement subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal
►Non-Interstate Pavement          
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608493 Boston Region Topsfield TOPSFIELD- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 4 NHPP  $9,119,040  $7,295,232  $1,823,808 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608495 Boston Region Multiple CONCORD- LEXINGTON- LINCOLN- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 2A 4 NHPP  $3,171,840  $2,537,472  $634,368 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608498 Boston Region Multiple HINGHAM- WEMOUTH- BRAINTREE- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 53 5 NHPP  $7,929,600  $6,343,680  $1,585,920 Construction
Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ►  $20,220,480  $16,176,384  $4,044,096 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Roadway Improvements          
  Roadway Improvements Project # MPO N/A Description District STP  $-    $-    $-    
Roadway Improvements subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Safety Improvements          
  Safety Improvements Project # MPO Multiple Description District STP  $-    $-    $-    
Safety Improvements subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects
► ADA Retrofits          
  ADA Retrofits Project # Statewide Multiple Description 4 STP  $-    $-    $-    
ADA Retrofits subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Intersection Improvements          
  Intersection Improvements 608566 Boston Region Marlborough MARLBOROUGH- IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 20 (EAST MAIN STREET) AT CURTIS AVENUE 3 HSIP  $2,784,000  $2,505,600  $278,400 Construction / PSAC score 51.5
  Intersection Improvements 608567 Boston Region Peabody PEABODY- IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 114 AT SYLVAN STREET, CROSS STREET, NORTHSHORE MALL, LORIS ROAD, ROUTE 128 INTERCHANGE AND ESQUIRE DRIVE 4 HSIP  $2,784,000  $2,505,600  $278,400 Construction / PSAC score 61.5
  Intersection Improvements 607342 Boston Region Milton MILTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 28 (RANDOLPH AVENUE) & CHICKATAWBUT ROAD 6 HSIP  $1,531,200  $1,378,080  $153,120 Construction / PSAC score 43
  Intersection Improvements 608569 Boston Region Quincy QUINCY- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 3A (SOUTHERN ARTERY) AND BROAD STREET 6 HSIP  $2,784,000  $2,505,600  $278,400 Construction / PSAC score 55
Intersection Improvements subtotal ►  $9,883,200  $8,894,880  $988,320 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Intelligent Transportation Systems          
  Intelligent Transportation Systems Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Roadway Reconstruction          
  Roadway Reconstruction 607901 Boston Region Dedham DEDHAM- PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ELM STREET & RUSTCRAFT ROAD CORRIDORS 6 CMAQ  $2,581,113  $2,064,890  $516,223 Construction / PSAC score 51.25
  Roadway Reconstruction 607977 Boston Region Multiple HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE 3 NHPP  $37,500,000  $30,000,000  $7,500,000 Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 2 of 6 / PSAC score 49
Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ►  $40,081,113  $32,064,890  $8,016,223 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects
►Bicycles and Pedestrians          
  Bicycles and Pedestrians 607329 Boston Region Multiple WAKEFIELD- LYNNFIELD- RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION, FROM THE GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL TO LYNNFIELD/PEABODY T.L. 4 CMAQ  $7,084,000  $5,667,200  $1,416,800 Construction / PSAC score 32.5
Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ►  $7,084,000  $5,667,200  $1,416,800 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Capacity          
  Capacity Project # MPO Municipalities Description District CMAQ  $-    $-    $-    
Capacity subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs
►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs          
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs Project # Statewide Multiple ABP GANS Repayment  Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Other Statewide Items subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects
►Non-Federally Aided Projects          
  Non Federal Aid 607977 Boston Region Multiple HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE 3 NFA  $18,112,483    $18,112,483 Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 2 of 6 / PSAC score 49
Non-Federal Aid subtotal►  $18,112,483    $18,112,483 ◄100% Non-Federal
2021 Summary TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ TIP Section 4: ▼ Total of All Projects ▼    
Total ►  $248,346,318  $18,112,483  $266,458,801 ◄ Total Spending in Region
Federal Funds ►  $200,050,306    $200,050,306 ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region
Non-Federal Funds ►  $48,296,012  $18,112,483  $66,408,495 ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region
                         
701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008.  Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road.  The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority.  For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority.  Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation.   This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website:  http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Project List (FY2021)
FTA Program Project Number Transit Agency FTA Activity Line Item Project Description Carryover (unobligated) Federal Funds State Funds TDC Local Funds Total Cost
5307                    
5307 RTD0005479 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 117A00 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 2020 - $350,000 $350,000 $87,500 $0 $0 $437,500
5307 RTD0005480 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114206 ACQUIRE - SHOP EQ/COMP/SFTWR 2020 - $40,000 $40,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $50,000
5307 RTD0005163 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 440000 Mobility Management 2020 - $25,000 $25,000 $6,250 $0 $0 $31,250
5307 RTD0006003 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 117C00 NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV 2020 - $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $1,625,000
5307 RTD0006004 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 113403 TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) 2020 - $150,000 $150,000 $37,500 $0 $0 $187,500
5307 RTD0006005 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 114200 ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES 2020 - $248,415 $248,415 $62,104 $0 $0 $310,519
5307 RTD0006369 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 121200 Revenue Vehicle Program $120,000,000 $0 $0 $30,000,000 $150,000,000
5307 RTD0006370 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 126301 Systemwide Signals Program $25,840,976 $0 $0 $6,460,244 $32,301,220
          Subtotal $147,954,391 $528,354 $0 $36,460,244 $184,942,989
5309                    
5309 RTD0005988 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 132303 Green Line Extension Project $146,121,000 $0 $0 $147,848,038 $293,969,038
          Subtotal $146,121,000 $0 $0 $147,848,038 $293,969,038
5310                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5311                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5337                    
5337 RTD0006371 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 122405 Bridge & Tunnel Program $96,000,000 $0 $0 $24,000,000 $120,000,000
5337 RTD0006372 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 123400 Stations and Facilities Program $35,347,989 $0 $0 $8,836,997 $44,184,986
5337 RTD0006373 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 124400 System Upgrades Program $16,000,000 $0 $0 $4,000,000 $20,000,000
          Subtotal $147,347,989 $0 $0 $36,836,997 $184,184,986
5339                    
5339 RTD0006374 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 111400 Bus Program $5,552,214 $0 $0 $1,388,053 $6,940,267
          Subtotal $5,552,214 $0 $0 $1,388,053 $6,940,267
5320                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Federal                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Non-Federal                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
          Total $446,975,594 $528,354 $0 $222,533,332 $670,037,280
Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount

2022 Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program      
     
Amendment /
Adjustment Type ▼
STIP                             Program ▼ MassDOT Project ID Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ Municipality Name ▼ MassDOT                                                                                                              Project                                                                                               Description MassDOT  District Funding                       Source Total Programmed                Funds Federal                    Funds Non-Federal                        Funds Additional Information ▼                                   Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information
►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects
►Regionally Prioritized Projects          
Roadway reconstruction program 606226 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE 6 TAP  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000 Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 3 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515; TAP project proponent = Boston
Roadway reconstruction program 606226 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE 6 STP  $40,445,768  $32,356,614  $8,089,154 Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 3 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515
Intersection improvements program 605857 Boston Region Norwood NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY AVENUE/EVERETT STREET  5 HSIP  $631,724  $568,552  $63,172 Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,377,782; MPO Evaluation Score = 55
Intersection improvements program 605857 Boston Region Norwood NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY AVENUE/EVERETT STREET  5 CMAQ  $3,000,000  $2,400,000  $600,000 Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,377,782; MPO Evaluation Score = 55
Intersection improvements program 605857 Boston Region Norwood NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY AVENUE/EVERETT STREET  5 STP  $5,746,058  $4,596,846  $1,149,212 Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,377,782; MPO Evaluation Score = 55
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs BN0009 Boston Region Multiple COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM NA CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Planning, Design, or Construction; Set Aside for LRTP Clean Air and Mobility Program
Bicycles and pedestrians program 607738 Boston Region Bedford BEDFORD- MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY EXTENSION, FROM LOOMIS STREET TO THE CONCORD T.L. 4 CMAQ  $3,000,000  $2,400,000  $600,000 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,862,878; MPO Evaluation Score = 47
Bicycles and pedestrians program 607738 Boston Region Bedford BEDFORD- MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY EXTENSION, FROM LOOMIS STREET TO THE CONCORD T.L. 4 TAP  $350,000  $280,000  $70,000 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost =  $7,862,878; MPO Evaluation Score = 47; TAP project proponent = Bedford
Bicycles and pedestrians program 607738 Boston Region Bedford BEDFORD- MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY EXTENSION, FROM LOOMIS STREET TO THE CONCORD T.L. 4 STP  $4,512,878  $3,610,302  $902,576 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost =  $7,862,878; MPO Evaluation Score = 47
Bicycles and pedestrians program 608164 Boston Region Sudbury SUDBURY- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION (BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL) 3 CMAQ  $3,000,000  $2,400,000  $600,000 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,004,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 40
Bicycles and pedestrians program 608164 Boston Region Sudbury SUDBURY- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION (BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL) 3 TAP  $500,000  $400,000  $100,000 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,004,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 40; TAP project proponent = Sudbury
Bicycles and pedestrians program 608164 Boston Region Sudbury SUDBURY- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION (BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL) 3 STP  $4,504,000  $3,603,200  $900,800 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,004,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 40
  Roadway reconstruction program 607777 Boston Region Watertown WATERTOWN- REHABILITATION OF MOUNT AUBURN STREET (ROUTE 16) 6 HSIP  $2,000,000  $1,800,000  $200,000 Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $14,190,425; MPO Evaluation Score = 75
  Roadway reconstruction program 607777 Boston Region Watertown WATERTOWN- REHABILITATION OF MOUNT AUBURN STREET (ROUTE 16) 6 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $14,190,425; MPO Evaluation Score = 75
  Roadway reconstruction program 607777 Boston Region Watertown WATERTOWN- REHABILITATION OF MOUNT AUBURN STREET (ROUTE 16) 6 STP  $11,190,425  $8,952,340  $2,238,085 Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $14,190,425; MPO Evaluation Score = 75
  Roadway reconstruction program 608078 Boston Region Chelsea CHELSEA- RECONSTRUCTION ON BROADWAY (ROUTE 107), FROM CITY HALL AVENUE TO THE REVERE C.L. 6 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,028,628; MPO Evaluation Score = 61
  Roadway reconstruction program 608078 Boston Region Chelsea CHELSEA- RECONSTRUCTION ON BROADWAY (ROUTE 107), FROM CITY HALL AVENUE TO THE REVERE C.L. 6 STP  $8,028,628  $6,422,902  $1,605,726 Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,028,628; MPO Evaluation Score = 61
  Roadway reconstruction program 608229 Boston Region Acton ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT KELLEY'S CORNER, ROUTE 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AND ROUTE 27 (MAIN STREET) 3 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,671,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 45
  Roadway reconstruction program 608229 Boston Region Acton ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT KELLEY'S CORNER, ROUTE 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AND ROUTE 27 (MAIN STREET) 3 TAP  $200,000  $160,000  $40,000 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,671,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 45; TAP project proponent = Acton
  Roadway reconstruction program 608229 Boston Region Acton ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT KELLEY'S CORNER, ROUTE 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AND ROUTE 27 (MAIN STREET) 3 STP  $7,471,000  $5,976,800  $1,494,200 Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,671,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 45
  Roadway reconstruction program 608146 Boston Region Marblehead MARBLEHEAD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT PLEASANT STREET & VILLAGE, VINE AND CROSS STREETS   4 STP  $959,378  $767,502  $191,876 Construction; STP Total Cost = $959,378; MPO Evaluation Score = 40
Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ►  $49,716,309  $39,973,047  $9,743,262 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis        
Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ►  $101,539,859  $101,539,859 ◄Total Budget  $(0) Funds Over Programmed
Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. STP programmed ►  $82,858,135  $83,572,288 ◄ Max STP  $714,153 STP available
HSIP programmed ►  $2,631,724  $4,296,710 ◄ Min. HSIP  $1,664,986 HSIP recommended not met
CMAQ programmed ►  $13,000,000  $10,741,776 ◄ Min. CMAQ  $(2,258,224) CMAQ recommended met
TAP programmed ►  $3,050,000  $2,929,085 ◄ Min. TAP  $(120,915) TAP amount exceeded!
HSIP, CMAQ, TAP Overprogrammed  $(0)      
►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects
►Other Federal Aid          
  Earmark Discretionary Project # Boston Municipalities Description District HPP  $-    $-    $-    
  Earmark Discretionary Project # Boston Municipalities Description District HPP  $-    $-    $-    
Other Federal Aid subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
 
►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects
►Bridge Program / Inspections          
  Bridge Program Project # Statewide Multiple Description Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / Off-System          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO N/A Description District STP-BR-OFF  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS)          
  Bridge Program 606728 Boston Region Boston BOSTON- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPAIRS ON B-16-365, BOWKER OVERPASS OVER STORROW DRIVE (EB) 6 NHPP-On  $24,009,680  $19,207,744  $4,801,936 Construction
Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ►  $24,009,680  $19,207,744  $4,801,936 ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS)          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP-Off  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance          
  Bridge Program Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP-On  $-    $-    $-    
Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Interstate Pavement          
  Interstate Pavement 608210 Boston Region Multiple FOXBOROUGH- PLAINVILLE- WRENTHAM- FRANKLIN- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE & RELATED WORK ON I-495 5 NHPP  $11,497,920  $10,348,128  $1,149,792 Construction
Insterstate Pavement subtotal ►  $11,497,920  $10,348,128  $1,149,792 ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal
►Non-Interstate Pavement          
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608817 Boston Region Multiple SALEM- LYNN- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 107 4 NHPP  $2,566,500  $2,053,200  $513,300 Construction
  Non-Interstate Pavement 608818 Boston Region Danvers DANVERS- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 114 4 NHPP  $1,916,320  $1,533,056  $383,264 Construction
Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ►  $4,482,820  $3,586,256  $896,564 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Roadway Improvements          
  Roadway Improvements Project # MPO N/A Description 5 STP  $-    $-    $-    
Roadway Improvements subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
► Safety Improvements          
  Safety Improvements Project # MPO N/A Description Multiple HSIP  $-    $-    $-    
Safety Improvements subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects
► ADA Retrofits          
  ADA Retrofits Project # MPO Municipalities Description District STP  $-    $-    $-    
ADA Retrofits subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Intersection Improvements          
  Intersection Improvements Project # MPO Municipalities Description District HSIP  $-    $-    $-    
Intersection Improvements subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Intelligent Transportation Systems          
  Intelligent Transportation Systems Project # MPO Municipalities Description District NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Roadway Reconstruction          
  Roadway Reconstruction 607977 Boston Region Multiple HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE 3 NHPP  $37,500,000  $30,000,000  $7,500,000 Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 3 of 6 / PSAC score 49
Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ►  $37,500,000  $30,000,000  $7,500,000 ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects
►Bicycles and Pedestrians          
  Bicycles and Pedestrians Project # MPO N/A Description District CMAQ  $-    $-    $-    
Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal
►Capacity          
  Capacity Project # MPO Municipalities Description District CMAQ  $-    $-    $-    
Capacity subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs
►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs          
  Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs Project # Statewide Multiple Description Multiple NHPP  $-    $-    $-    
Other Statewide Items subtotal ►  $-    $-    $-   ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source
►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects
►Non-Federally Aided Projects          
  Non Federal Aid 607977 Boston Region Multiple HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE 3 NFA  $18,112,483    $18,112,483 Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 3 of 6 / PSAC score 49
Non-Federal Aid subtotal►  $18,112,483    $18,112,483 ◄100% Non-Federal
2022 Summary TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ TIP Section 4: ▼ Total of All Projects ▼    
Total ►  $127,206,729  $18,112,483  $145,319,212 ◄ Total Spending in Region
Federal Funds ►  $103,115,175    $103,115,175 ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region
Non-Federal Funds ►  $24,091,554  $18,112,483  $42,204,037 ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region
701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008.  Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road.  The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority.  For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority.  Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation.   This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website:  http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx

 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Project List (FY2022)
FTA Program Project Number Transit Agency FTA Activity Line Item Project Description Carryover (unobligated) Federal Funds State Funds TDC Local Funds Total Cost
5307                    
5307 RTD0006090 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 117A00 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 2021 - $325,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $81,250 $406,250
5307 RTD0006091 Cape Ann Transportation Authority 114206 ACQUIRE - SHOP EQUIPMENT 2021 - $40,000 $40,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $50,000
5307 RTD0006299 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 117C00 NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV 2021 - $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $325,000 $0 $0 $1,625,000
5307 RTD0006300 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 114200 ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES 2021 - $248,415 $248,415 $62,104 $0 $0 $310,519
5307 RTD0006301 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 113403 TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) 2021 - $150,000 $150,000 $37,500 $0 $0 $187,500
5307 RTD0006302 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 440000 Mobility Management 2021 - $25,000 $25,000 $6,250 $0 $0 $31,250
5307 RTD0006375 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 121200 Revenue Vehicle Program $80,000,000 $0 $0 $20,000,000 $100,000,000
5307 RTD0006376 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 126301 Systemwide Signals Program $65,840,976 $0 $0 $16,460,244 $82,301,220
          Subtotal $147,929,391 $440,854 $0 $36,541,494 $184,911,739
5309                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5310                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5311                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5337                    
5337 RTD0006377 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 122405 Bridge & Tunnel Program $72,000,000 $0 $0 $18,000,000 $90,000,000
5337 RTD0006378 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 123400 Stations and Facilities Program $11,347,989 $0 $0 $2,836,997 $14,184,986
5337 RTD0006379 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 126301 Systemwide Signals Program $64,000,000 $0 $0 $16,000,000 $80,000,000
          Subtotal $147,347,989 $0 $0 $36,836,997 $184,184,986
5339                    
5339 RTD0006380 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 111400 Bus Program $5,552,214 $0 $0 $1,388,053 $6,940,267
          Subtotal $5,552,214 $0 $0 $1,388,053 $6,940,267
5320                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Federal                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Non-Federal                    
          Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
          Total $300,829,594 $440,854 $0 $74,766,544 $376,036,992
Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount

 

project information key

 

ID Number: Projects' identification number in MassDOT’s project-tracking system.

 

Municipality(ies): The municipality (or municipalities) in which a project is located.

 

Project Name: The project name or descriptor of the project location.

 

STIP Program: Every project programmed in the TIP is categorized by MassDOT into one of three state priority areas: reliability, modernization, or expansion. Within these priority areas, projects are categorized into one of several STIP programs. This organization is illustrated below:

 

  1. Reliability – projects that focus on improving the reliability of the core transportation system:
    1. Bridge Program
    2. Interstate pavement
    3. Non-interstate pavement
    4. Roadway improvements
    5. Safety improvements
  2. Modernization – projects that focus on modernizing existing assets so that they better accommodate current or anticipated growth:
    1. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) retrofits
    2. Intersection improvements
    3. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
    4. Roadway reconstruction
  3. Expansion – projects that focus on the physical expansion of the transportation system:
    1. Capacity
    2. Bicycles and pedestrians

 

Air Quality Status: The air quality status of the project in the MPO’s regional travel demand model. A project can be analyzed in the model if it adds capacity to the transportation system (for example, additional travel lanes on a highway, new transit service, or changes in transit service frequency or headways). Individual project benefits are not calculated, but are included in a total emission reduction calculation for the region. If the project is not included in the model it is shown as “exempt.”

 

CO2 Impact: As discussed above, if a project is included in the model it will have no individual carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission impact calculation associated with it. For all other projects, if project information is available, the quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide reduced (or increased) by the project are shown. A CO2 impact analysis can be done for intersection improvement projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, replacement bus projects, and new transit service. A CO2 impact analysis cannot be done for bridge replacement projects or pavement maintenance/or rehabilitation projects; these projects are listed as having no CO2 impact. See Appendix C for more details on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission monitoring and evaluation.

 

Evaluation Rating: The number of points scored by the project based on the evaluation criteria.

 

MPO/CTPS Study: Past studies funded in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) or reports conducted within the project area.

 

LRTP Status: The time band that the project is programmed in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), if applicable.

 

Project Length: The length of the project in miles. This information is based on the best available data, and comes mainly from MassDOT’s Project Information website and from communication with project proponents or MassDOT project managers. Project lengths are engineering design estimates and may change during project development and construction.

 

Project Description: The description of the project, if it is available. This is based on the written description of the project that is included on MassDOT’s Project Information website, http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx.

 

Year: The programming year(s) of the project.

 

Funding Program: The funding program(s) of the project. See Chapter 2 for more details on funding programs.

 

Total Funding Programmed: The total funding programmed for the project based on the year of expenditure.

 

Information regarding TIP projects changes periodically. For more information on all projects please visit MassDOT’s Project Information website, www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx; the Boston Region MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org/; or, contact Ali Kleyman, TIP Manager, at akleyman@ctps.org.

The following pages contain written descriptions of each of the projects funded in the FFYs 2018-2022 TIP. These are currently only provided in PDF format. If you need the information in a different format, please contact Ali Kleyman at akleyman@ctps.org.

 

Chapter four

Using Performance Measures to Track and Demonstrate Progress

overview of Performance-based planning

Increasingly, over the past two decades, transportation agencies have been applying performance management—a strategic approach that uses performance data to help achieve desired outcomes—to support decision-making. Performance management is credited with improving project and program delivery, informing investment decision-making, focusing staff on leadership priorities, and providing greater transparency and accountability to the public.

Performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) refers to transportation agencies’ application of performance management in their planning and programming work to achieve desired outcomes for the multimodal transportation system. For metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), this embraces a range of activities and products developed together with other agencies, stakeholders, and the public as part of the 3C metropolitan transportation planning process. This includes developing the following:

The goal of PBPP is to ensure that transportation investment decisions—both for long-term planning and short-term funding—are oriented toward meeting established goals.

The cornerstone of the transportation authorization legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century’s (MAP-21), was the establishment of a performance- and outcome-based surface transportation program. The current legislation, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), continues the PBPP provisions established under MAP-21.

States will invest resources in projects to achieve individual state targets that collectively will make progress toward national goals, as detailed in the FAST Act:

Table 4-1 shows the relationship between these national goals and the MPO’s goals, which were established as part of the MPO’s current LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. These goals and related objectives are described in Chapter 1 of this document.

 

TABLE 4-1:

National and MPO Performance Goals

National Goal

MPO Goal

Safety

Safety

Infrastructure Condition

System Preservation

System Reliability

Capacity Management/Mobility

Congestion Reduction

Capacity Management/Mobility

Environmental Sustainability

Clean Air/Clean Communities

Freight Movement/ Economic Vitality

Capacity Management/Mobility

and Economic Vitality

Reduced Project Delivery Delays

Not applicable

Not applicable

Transportation Equity

 

This performance-based planning mandate is also designed to help the nation’s public transportation systems to provide high-quality service to all users, including people with disabilities, seniors, and individuals who depend on public transportation.

 

Performance-based planning AND PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS

The US Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with states, MPOs, and other stakeholders, has established measures in performance areas relevant to the aforementioned national goals. Table 4-2 lists federally required performance measures for the transit system and Table 4-3 lists federally required performance measures for the highway system.


TABLE 4-2:

Federally Required TRANSIT Performance measures

National Goal

Transit Performance Area or Asset Category

Performance Measure

Safety

Fatalities

Total number of reportable fatalities and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode

Safety

Injuries

Total number of reportable injuries and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode

Safety

Safety Events

Total number of reportable events and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode

Safety

System Reliability

Mean distance between major mechanical failures by mode

Infrastructure Condition

Equipment

Percentage of vehicles that have met or exceeded their Useful Life Benchmark (ULB)

Infrastructure Condition

Rolling Stock

Percent of revenue vehicles within a particular asset class that have met or exceeded their ULB

Infrastructure Condition

Infrastructure

Percentage of track segments with performance restrictions

Infrastructure Condition

Facilities

Percentage of facilities within an asset class rated below 3.0 on the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Economic Requirements Model scale


Note: This table reflects federally required transit performance measures as of May 20, 2017. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), and MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) are developing targets for infrastructure condition measures, which are described in the Transit Asset Management (TAM) Rule, which was finalized in July 2016 and is in effect. The Boston Region MPO anticipates adopting metropolitan area targets for these measures by fall 2018. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan Rule, which requires public transportation operators and MPOs to develop targets for safety measures identified in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, has not been finalized.

 

1The definition of reportable for fatalities, injuries, and events is defined in the National Transit Database Safety and Security Reporting Manual.  

Sources: National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the proposed Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan Rule, and the final TAM Rule

 

TABLE 4-3:

Federally Required Highway Performance measures

National Goal

Highway

Performance Area

Performance Measure

Safety

Injuries and Fatalities

  • Number of fatalities
  • Fatality rate (per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled)
  • Number of serious injuries
  • Serious injury rate (per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled)
  • Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries

Infrastructure Condition

Pavement Condition

  • Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in good condition
  • Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in poor condition
  • Percentage of pavements on the non-Interstate NHS in good condition
  • Percentage of pavements on the non-Interstate NHS in poor condition

Infrastructure Condition

Bridge Condition

  • Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in good condition
  • Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in poor condition

System Reliability

Performance of the National Highway System

  • Percentage of person-miles traveled on the Interstate System that are reliable
  • Percent of person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable
  • Percent change in tailpipe carbon dioxide emission levels on the NHS compared to the calendar year 2017 levels

Freight Movement and Economic Vitality

Freight Movement on the Interstate System

Truck Travel Time Reliability Index

Congestion Reduction

Traffic Congestion

  • Annual hours of peak hour excessive delay per capita
  • Percent of non-single-occupant vehicle travel

Environmental Sustainability

On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

Total emissions reduction

Note: This table reflects federally required highway performance measures as of May 20, 2017.  Rules pertaining to these performance measures (except

 where noted) are now in effect. The MPO will develop targets for these measures according to the federal government’s and Commonwealth’s guidelines

and schedules.

 

1 The provisions of the final rules for federally required highway performance measures that pertain to carbon dioxide emissions on the National Highway

System have been indefinitely delayed pending further notice and comment procedures. For more information on the MPO’s response to the

Commonwealth’s greenhouse gas monitoring requirements, see Chapters 1 and 2 and Appendix C. 

NHS: National Highway System

 

States, public transit operators, and MPOs are required to set performance targets to address these measures and track progress toward attainment of desired outcomes for the transportation system. MPOs must set targets no later than 180 days after their respective states or public transit operators have set their targets for highway or transit system performance. States, public transit operators, and MPOs are required to coordinate with one another and to share information and data so that there is consistency across these agencies’ target setting processes.

Once the MPO has established targets for each performance measure, the MPO’s LRTP and TIP will become planning and programming mechanisms to help achieve these targets. They will also become valuable reporting tools. Future LRTPs and TIPs will include descriptions of the MPO’s performance measures and targets, including those that are federally required. The LRTPs will describe the state of the transportation system with respect to the federally required measures and will report on progress toward meeting required targets. The TIPs will describe the links between short-term capital investment priorities and these measures and targets, and discuss how these investments are anticipated to help the MPO achieve its targets.

status of Performance-based planning And Programming

MPO Performance-Based Planning and Programming Activities

The Boston Region MPO continues to integrate PBPP practices into its activities to meet FAST Act performance-measure requirements and improve MPO decision-making. The MPO has conducted the following activities:

There are two major next steps for the MPO. First, the MPO will establish a set of performance measures to track on an ongoing basis, including federally required measures and other measures of interest. Then, targets will be set for federally required measures, and potentially other measures. 

Performance-Based Planning and Programming Activities in the TIP

The MPO’s goals provide the foundation for the TIP evaluation criteria used in the project selection process, as described in Chapter 2. These criteria describe the ways that individual projects can help the MPO advance its various goals. Over time, the contributions made by TIP projects are expected to generate changes in the transportation system’s performance.

In Charting Progress to 2040, the MPO strengthened the link between its spending and improvements to transportation performance by establishing a series of investment programs. These programs each support multiple MPO goals, and include the following:

As part of developing this LRTP, the MPO allocated a large portion of its discretionary funds to these investment programs over the two-decade span of the LRTP. These funds are assigned to TIP projects that meet the investment programs’ criteria. Details about these programs and their relationship to MPO goals are shown in Figure 4-1. Table 4-4 and Figure 4-2 show how FFYs 2018−22 Regional Target funding is distributed across MPO investment programs.

 

TABLE 4-4:

Projects and funding, by MPO Investment program

Investment Program

Number of Projects

Funding for Projects

Major Infrastructure

7

$304.1 million

Complete Streets

15

$140 million

Intersection Improvements

6

$28.9 million

Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections

3

$18.7 million

Community Transportation / Parking / Clean Air and Mobility

N/A

$2.0 million

Total Projects

31

$493.6 million

 

Note: No projects are currently programmed in the Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility Program. Funding amounts have been rounded to the nearest $100,000.

Source: CTPS

-	Figure 4-1: MPO Investment Programs: This figure describes the MPO’s five investment programs: Intersection Improvements, Complete Streets, Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Community Transportation/ Parking/ Clean Air and Mobility Program, and Major Infrastructure.

 

FIGURE 4-2:

FFYs 2018−22 TIP Regional Target funding, by MPO Investment program

 

Figure 4-2 - FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Funding by Investment Program Type: This chart shows the distribution of $491.8 million in federal fiscal years 2018-22 MPO Regional Target Funding across five MPO programs: Major Infrastructure (61.6%), Complete Streets (28.4%), Intersection Improvements (5.9%), Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections (3.8%), and Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility (0.4%)

Source: CTPS

 

The following sections of this chapter describe trends for several performance measures and demonstrate how transportation investments for the next five years would advance the MPO’s goals and objectives using available project data. These sections will be updated over time as the MPO integrates methods for monitoring federally required performance measures and others into its PBPP practice.

 

tracking performance measures and demonstrating progress toward goals and objectives

Safety—Using Performance Measures to Track Progress

Safety for all transportation modes continues to be a top priority for the Boston Region MPO. The MPO’s goals commit to investing in projects and programs that reduce the severity of crashes for all modes.

The MPO tracks traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the Boston region using data on motor vehicle crashes to examine past trends, identify regional safety issues, and set future targets for preferred performance. Tracking these measures helps to gauge the effectiveness of MPO transportation investments in helping to reduce fatalities and injuries.

Between 2009 and 2014, traffic fatalities (based on a rolling five-year average) decreased from 137 fatalities in 2009 to 121 in 2014, a decline of 12 percent. Figure 4-3 shows the change in traffic fatalities by mode during this period and indicates that the decline in fatalities represents fewer automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle fatalities. Similarly, total traffic crashes and injuries declined by 24 percent and 25 percent, respectively, between 2009 and 2014. Information on injuries is shown in Figure 4-4.

FIGURE 4-3:

Traffic Fatalities in the Boston Region by Mode, 2009−2014

 

-	Figure 4-3: Traffic Fatalities in the Boston Region by Mode, 2009−14: This chart shows the total traffic fatalities in the MPO region as well as fatalities associated with bicycle, pedestrian, and truck-involved crashes. Five-year rolling averages are provided for each year between 2009 and 2014.

Sources: MassDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Reporting System, and the MassDOT Crash Data System.

 

Despite these overall gains, crashes and injuries involving pedestrians and bicyclists rose during this same period. Between 2009 and 2014, roughly two-thirds of pedestrian and bicycle crashes resulted in an injury. For pedestrian-involved crashes, the number of crashes increased by 22 percent and injuries by 39 percent. For bicyclist-involved crashes, the number of crashes increased by 17 percent and injuries by 27 percent.

In addition to pedestrian and bicycle safety issues, motor vehicle safety issues remain concerning. Though the number of traffic crashes is decreasing, there are a number of high-crash locations throughout the Boston region, including 69 of the Top 200 Crash Locations statewide.4

 

FIGURE 4-4:

Traffic Injuries in the Boston Region by Mode, 2009−2014

 

-	Figure 4-4: Traffic Injuries in the Boston Region by Mode, 2009−14: This chart shows the total traffic injuries in the MPO region, as well as injuries associated with bicycle, pedestrian, and truck-involved crashes. Five-year rolling averages are provided for each year between 2009 and 2014.

Sources: MassDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Reporting System, and the MassDOT Crash Data System.

 

Figure 4-5 shows the change in the traffic fatality rate and traffic injury rate in the Boston region between 2009 and 2014; these rates are based on 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and rolling five-year averages for fatalities, injuries, and VMT. During this period, the traffic fatality rate steadily declined by 12 percent from 0.52 fatalities per 100 million VMT to 0.46 fatalities per 100 million VMT. The traffic injury rate dropped by 26 percent, from 84 injuries per 100 million VMT to 62 injuries per 100 million VMT.

 

FIGURE 4-5:

Total Traffic Injury Rate and Traffic Fatality Rate (per 100 million Vehicle-Miles Traveled) in the Boston Region, 2009-14

 

Figure 4-5: Total Traffic Injury Rate and Traffic Fatality Rate (per 100 Million VMT) in the Boston Region, 2009−14:  This chart shows the total traffic injury rate (per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled) and the total traffic fatality rate (per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled). A five-year rolling average is provided for each year between 2009 and 2014.

 

Sources: MassDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Reporting System, and the MassDOT Crash Data System.

 

In prioritizing its capital investments for the TIP, the MPO uses project-evaluation criteria to determine projects’ ability to support the objective of reducing crash severity for all modes. These criteria assess the safety needs at locations where projects are proposed based on the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method of assessing crash severity; this method applies weighting factors based on whether motor vehicle crashes at the location involved property damage, injuries, or fatalities. These criteria also assess how well projects will address safety issues by considering proposed safety countermeasures that would be implemented.

Safety—Using Performance Measures to Demonstrate Progress

Within the TIP’s Regional Target Program, 12 proposed highway investments will improve safety at 25 high-crash locations to reduce crash severity for all modes. 5

Intersection Improvements

Three intersection improvement projects will enhance safety for automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians by implementing safety countermeasures at four high-crash locations: Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street in Hingham; Cabot Street at Dodge Street in Beverly; Cabot Street at Rantoul Street in Beverly; and Route 1 at University Avenue in Norwood.

Major Infrastructure

One example of a major infrastructure project that will improve safety is the Route 128 Add-a-Lane project, which will widen 3.25 miles of Interstate 95 in Needham and Wellesley to install an additional 12-foot travel lane and 10-foot shoulder in each direction to address serious safety issues. The addition of a fourth travel lane will eliminate use of the breakdown lane during peak periods. Also, adding collector roads between Highland Avenue and Kendrick Streets will provide safer weaving movements between the interchanges.

Complete Streets

The FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Program proposes 15 Complete Streets projects that will implement safety improvements at eight high-crash locations along corridors across the region. These corridor investments will provide safety improvements for automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, improvements on these 15 corridors will provide safe and continuous accommodations for non-motorized users by adding 32 lane miles of new bicycle facilities and eight miles of new sidewalk.

For example, the reconstruction of Broadway in Chelsea will implement safety improvements that will address three high-crash locations along the one-mile corridor. In addition, reconstruction of Ferry Street in Everett will improve safe access for pedestrians to businesses, schools, and bus stops along the corridor by providing continuous sidewalks and improved crossings.

System Preservation—Tracking Performance Measures

System preservation is a priority for the Boston Region MPO because the region’s transportation infrastructure is aging. The demands placed on highway and transit facilities have been taxing to the point that routine maintenance is insufficient to keep up with the need. As a result, there is a significant backlog of maintenance and state-of-good-repair work to be done on the highway and transit systems, including on bridges, roadway pavement, transit rolling stock, and traffic- and transit-control equipment.

As of 2014, MassDOT’s Pavement Management Program monitored approximately 4,150 lane miles of interstate, access-controlled arterial and collector roadways, and other arterial and collector roadways in the Boston region. 6 It has been the policy of the MPO not to fund resurfacing-only projects through the TIP. However, the MPO does make funding decisions for roadway reconstruction projects that include resurfacing, usually full-depth reconstruction, in addition to other design elements.

Figure 4-6 displays the number of lane miles in the Boston region—sorted by roadway classification—that were in good or better condition, based on International Roughness Index ratings, between 2010 and 2014. The figure indicates that, during this period, the number of lane miles in good or better condition on MassDOT-maintained roadways has remained relatively constant for 1) interstates, 2) access-controlled arterials and collectors, and 3) other arterials and collectors. Specifically, the total number of interstate miles in good condition has remained relatively consistent over this period, while the total number of access-controlled arterial and collector miles in good condition has increased by 11 percent, and the total number of other arterial and collector miles in good condition has declined by about two percent.

 

 

 

FIGURE 4-6:

Lane Miles of Pavement in Good or Better Condition in the Boston Region by Roadway Classification, 2010-2014

-	Figure 4-6: Lane Miles of Pavement in Good or Better Condition in the Boston Region by Roadway Classification, 2010-14: This chart shows the lane miles classified as being in good or better condition for the interstate roadways, access-controlled arterial and collector roadways, and other arterial and collector roadways in the Boston region. Data is shown for the years 2010 to 2014.

 

Note: This chart reflects data recorded in the year-end Massachusetts Road Inventory files for 2010 through 2014. The lane miles for each year in this chart were calculated using pavement condition data from the past five years to account for data collection cycles and data processing.  Good, fair, and poor classifications are based on International Roughness Index (IRI) ratings.

Source: MassDOT Pavement Management Program.

 

 

Figure 4-7 shows the number of interstate, access-controlled arterial and collector, and other arterial and collector lane miles that are in good, fair, or poor condition. According to data on measured roadways from the 2014 year-end Massachusetts Road Inventory file, approximately 71 percent of roadway lane miles are in good condition, 25 percent are in fair condition, and four percent are in poor condition—which meets MassDOT’s performance measure of at least 65 percent of the pavement in good condition. However, MassDOT-maintained arterial and collector roadways (without access controls) continue to account for a disproportionate share of substandard roadway lane miles. This roadway type accounted for 55 percent of the monitored roadway lane miles, but about 88 percent of the roadway lane miles that are in substandard condition.

 

FIGURE 4-7:

Pavement Condition in the Boston Region by Roadway Classification

 

-	Figure 4-7: Pavement Condition in the Boston Region by Roadway Classification: This chart shows the lane miles by pavement condition (good, fair, and poor) for the interstate roadways, access-controlled arterial and collector roadways, and other arterial and collector roadways in the Boston region.

 

Note: This chart reflects data recorded in the year-end 2014 Massachusetts Road Inventory file, which includes pavement data collected primarily in 2013. Good, fair, and poor classifications are based on International Roughness Index (IRI) ratings.

Source: MassDOT Pavement Management Program.

 

 

MassDOT also monitors the condition of its bridges across the state. There are 2,866 bridges located within the Boston region. Some are in substandard condition because they have been deemed by MassDOT bridge inspectors to be structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, or weight restricted (posted). Figure 4-8 displays the number of substandard bridges in the Boston region by condition between 2012 and 2016. During this period, the percentage of structurally deficient bridges remained relatively constant, varying between five and six percent of all bridges in the region. The share of functionally obsolete bridges increased from 19 to 20 percent, and the share of posted bridges declined from five to four percent.

 

FIGURE 4-8:

NUMBERS of Substandard Bridges in the Boston Region by Condition

-	Figure 4-8: Number of Substandard Bridges in the Boston Region by Condition: This chart shows the number of bridges in the Boston region that are structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, or weight restricted (posted). Data is shown for the years 2012 to 2016.

 

Source: MassDOT Bridge Inventory.

 

In prioritizing its capital investments for the TIP, the MPO uses project-evaluation criteria to assess how well each project improves pavement, bridge, signal, and transit asset condition to advance the MPO’s goal of maintaining a state-of-good repair on the region’s transportation system.

System Preservation—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

Virtually all of the Regional Target Program investments in the TIP advance the MPO’s system preservation goal to maintain the transportation system by improving pavement condition, traffic signal equipment, or sidewalk infrastructure; prioritizing projects that enable improved emergency response; or improving the resiliency of the transportation system to extreme weather conditions. In addition, the Regional Target Program highway investments contribute modestly to bridge preservation. Yet, the MassDOT Bridge Program remains the primary funding source for replacement or rehabilitation of substandard bridges.

The FFYs 2018-22 TIP’s Regional Target Program investments will improve approximately 67 lane miles of substandard pavement traveled daily by nearly 573,000 vehicles; 47 miles of substandard sidewalk; and 10 substandard bridges traveled daily by approximately 326,900 vehicles. In addition, there are 19 projects that will improve emergency response or make the transportation system more resilient to extreme weather conditions.

Intersection Improvements

The FFYs 2018–22 TIP’s Regional Target Program will improve substandard pavement at seven locations and will also improve emergency response or make the transportation system more resilient to extreme weather conditions.

Complete Streets

The FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Program will resurface or reconstruct more than 38 lane miles of substandard pavement; repair 27 miles of sidewalk infrastructure; and rehabilitate one substandard bridge on an arterial roadway. In addition, there are nine projects that will improve emergency response or make the transportation more resilient to extreme weather conditions.

For example, the reconstruction of Ferry Street in Everett will resurface more than three lane miles of substandard pavement while bringing six traffic signals, substandard sidewalks, street lighting, signs, and pavement markings into a state of good repair.

The reconstruction of Route 1A in Walpole will resurface nearly five lane miles of substandard pavement; repair nearly five miles of substandard sidewalk; signalize four intersections; and improve one substandard bridge.

Major Infrastructure

The FFYs 2018-22 TIP’s Regional Target Program will resurface or reconstruct approximately 25 lane miles of substandard pavement, and improve more than 15 miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and nine substandard bridges. In addition, there are five projects that will improve emergency response or make the transportation more resilient to extreme weather conditions.

For example, the reconstruction of Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will improve four lane miles of substandard pavement, three miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and one substandard bridge, while bringing traffic signals, street lighting, signs, and pavement markings into a state of good repair.

The Route 128 Add-a-Lane project will replace one structurally deficient bridge and three functionally obsolete bridges as part of widening Interstate 95 in Needham and Wellesley.

Capacity Management/Mobility—Tracking Performance Measures

Through its goal and objectives for capacity management and mobility, the MPO seeks to maximize the region’s existing transportation system so that both people and goods can move reliably and connect to key destinations. The Boston region is mature in development, which creates challenges to making major changes to its transportation infrastructure.

In order to determine how well the region’s roadways are performing, the MPO applies performance measures that gauge the duration, extent, intensity, and reliability (or regularity) of the occurrence of congestion. MPO staff analyzed congestion in the region using the CMP Express Highway and Arterial Performance Dashboards to establish a baseline for future comparison. MPO staff established congestion thresholds based on travel time index (TTI), which is the average peak-period travel time divided by free-flow travel time. When the average peak-period travel time equals free-flow travel time, the index equals one (1); higher values indicate more congestion. MPO staff established the following congestion thresholds based on TTI:

Figure 4-9 displays the percentage of lane miles of congestion based on TTI on the CMP-monitored expressway network. In the Boston region, 22 percent of all expressway lane miles in the AM peak period and 20 percent of all expressway lane miles in PM peak period experience moderate to severe congestion.

FIGURE 4-9:

Lane Miles of Congestion in the Boston Region: CMP-Monitored Expressways

-	Figure 4-9: Lane Miles of Congestion in the Boston Region: CMP-Monitored Expressways: This chart shows the number of expressway lane miles that meet various congestion thresholds (none, light, moderate, or severe) during AM and PM peak periods.

 

Source: Boston Region MPO Congestion Management Process (2012 INRIX data).

 

The measure of lane miles of congestion was significantly less for the arterial network. Figure 4-10 displays the percentage of lane miles of congestion based on TTI on the CMP arterial network. For the arterial network, only seven percent of arterials in the AM peak period and four percent of arterials in the PM peak period experience moderate to severe congestion.

 

FIGURE 4-10:

Lane Miles of Congestion in the Boston Region: CMP-Monitored Arterials

-	Figure 4-10: Lane Miles of Congestion in the Boston Region: CMP-Monitored Expressways: This chart shows the number of arterial lane miles that meet various congestion thresholds (none, light, moderate, or severe) during AM and PM peak periods.

Source: Boston Region MPO Congestion Management Process (2012 INRIX data).

Moving forward, the MPO will continue to monitor roadway congestion data to track system performance. This annual analysis will depend on routinely updated data sources, which may require the purchase of INRIX data or other comparable data. As the MPO integrates methods for monitoring federally required system reliability, congestion reduction, and freight movement performance measures into its PBPP practice, it will report information specific to these measures.

In prioritizing its capital investments in the TIP, the MPO uses evaluation criteria to assess how well each project expands transportation options or helps reduce congestion and delay to advance the MPO’s goal of managing capacity and improving mobility.

Capacity Management/Mobility—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

The MPO seeks to manage capacity on its transportation network and improve mobility for its users by extending transit service to provide alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode of travel, adding roadway capacity at bottleneck locations, and implementing traffic and operational improvements along congested corridors.

The FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Program highway investments will add 1 lane miles of bicycle facilities, add 10 miles of new sidewalk, and improve intermodal connections and/or access to transit at 24 locations. In addition, these investments would result in about 9,700 hours of reduced daily vehicle delay.7

Intersection Improvements

The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program will add five lane miles of bicycle lanes and over a mile of sidewalk infrastructure, and will improve intermodal connections and/or access to transit as a result of four projects. Combined, Intersection Improvement Program investments are expected to result in more than 1,970 hours of reduced daily vehicle delay.

Complete Streets

The FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Program will add nearly 32 lane miles of bicycle facilities; eight miles of new sidewalk infrastructure; and improve intermodal connections and/or connections to transit along 13 corridors.

For example, the reconstruction of Route 126 (Pond Street) in Ashland will transform the corridor by adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes where no such facilities currently exist. These improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians will provide the necessary facilities to support access to existing MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) bus services in the corridor. In addition, the Gateway East project in Brookline will provide safe access for bicyclists by implementing bicycle lanes that physically separate the facility from the travel lane to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists.

Major Infrastructure

The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program highway investments will add more than 19 miles of bicycle facilities, nearly a mile of sidewalk infrastructure, and improve intermodal connections and/or access to transit along four corridors.

For example, the reconstruction of Route 18 (Main Street) in Weymouth will improve an arterial bottleneck location by widening a four-mile section of the corridor from two to four lanes. In addition, the project will expand transportation options by adding eight miles of bicycle lanes. The Route 128 Add-a-Lane project will improve an express highway bottleneck location by widening 3.25 miles of Interstate 95 in Needham and Wellesley.

Transportation Equity—Tracking Performance Measures

The MPO’s transportation equity goals are to ensure that all residents fairly share the benefits and burdens of its transportation planning decisions, have opportunities to participate in the transportation planning process, and have a voice in the selection of the transportation investments in their communities. To this end, the MPO systematically integrates the concerns of specific populations it has identified as transportation equity populations into its planning process and strives to address these concerns through its selection of transportation projects.

Several populations are considered transportation equity populations by the MPO; their needs are specifically considered at the various stages of the MPO’s planning process—including analyses of benefits and burdens, project evaluation, and public outreach. These populations include minorities, the elderly (75 years or older), people with limited English proficiency (LEP), low income households, zero-vehicle households, and people with disabilities. These populations include those that are protected by federal laws and regulations—such as minorities and persons with disabilities—as well as those that are not covered by federal laws or regulations but are of interest to the MPO from an equity standpoint (such as zero-vehicle households).

The MPO’s equity considerations are rooted in several federal regulations and presidential executive orders, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898 (addressing environmental justice), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other US Department of Transportation orders. (For more information on these laws and orders, see Chapter 1.)

The MPO’s project evaluation process analyzes the extent to which projects that are considered for funding through the TIP would potentially serve transportation equity populations. Table 4-5 lists each transportation equity population group and the percentage of the Boston region’s total population that falls into each category.

 

TABLE 4-5:

 Transportation Equity Populations
in the Boston Region

Transportation

Equity

Category

Equity

Populationa

Boston Region Total

Populationa

Share of Boston Region Total

Population

Minority Population

878,118

3,161,712

27.8%

Limited English Proficiency Populationb

312,343

2,985,344

10.5%

Elderly Population (75 years and older)

211,347

3,161,712

6.7%

Persons with Disabilitiesc

314,010

3,129,938

10.0%

Low-Income Householdsd

399,607

1,243,189

32.1%

Zero-Vehicle Households

196,718

1,243,189

15.8%

 

a: For the minority, LEP, elderly, and persons with disabilities categories, the amounts in the “Equity Population” and “Boston Region Total Populations” columns reflect numbers of people. For the low-income and zero-vehicle household categories, the amounts in these columns reflect numbers of households. b: Limited English proficiency is tabulated for the population aged five and older: c: Disability status is tabulated for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. d: The median household income in the Boston region was $76,040 in 2010-14. The MPO’s low-income threshold is 60 percent of this value, or $45,624.

Sources: 2010 U S Census, 2010-14 American Community Survey.

 

Transportation Equity—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

The MPO’s transportation investments advance transportation equity by prioritizing projects with the potential to serve transportation equity populations. When conducting evaluations of proposed TIP projects, the MPO examines whether each project has the potential to serve one or more of these populations by examining the share each equity population comprises of the total population within one-half mile of the project. This share is then compared to the share that each transportation equity population group makes up of the total Boston region population. Appendix A lists the results for each evaluated project.   

Table 4-6 provides a illustrative comparison of the transportation equity populations that may be served by the Green Line Extension and the highway projects  programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP (funded by Regional Targets) to the total population that may be served by these investments (based on proximity to the project, as defined above).  

The table shows that the share of each group that may be served by these Regional Target-funded projects (of the total population served by these projects) approaches or exceeds the share each group comprises of the total Boston region population (shown in Table 4-5).

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4-6:

Transportation Equity populations NEAR FFYs 2018-22 Regional Target-Funded TIP PROJECTS

Transportation

Equity

Category

Equity

Population

in Project Areaa,b

Total

Population in Project Areaa,b

Share of Population in Project Area

Minority Population

145,386

413,470

35.2%

Limited English Proficiency Populationc

56,828

391,374

14.5%

Elderly Population

21,730

413,470

5.3%

Persons with Disabilitiesd

38,991

408,711

9.5%

Low-Income Householdse

63,707

166,809

38.2%

Zero-Vehicle Households

41,566

166,809

24.9%

 

a: For minority, LEP, elderly, and persons with disabilities populations, the numbers in the “Equity Population in a Project Area” and “Share of Population in Project Area” columns reflect numbers of people. For the low-income and zero-vehicle household categories, the numbers in these columns reflect the number of households. b: This analysis examines populations located within a one-half mile buffer of FFYs 2018-22 TIP projects. c: Limited English proficiency is tabulated for the population aged five and older: d: Disability status is tabulated for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. e: The median household income in the Boston region was $76,040 in 2010-14. The low income threshold is 60 percent of this value, or $45,624.

Sources: 2010 U S Census, 2010-14 American Community Survey. 

 

The results of this analysis indicate that the communities benefitting from these projects generally have a larger percentage of transportation equity populations than the Boston region as a whole. However, this analysis uses a very basic approach for understanding how various transportation equity populations may be affected by TIP projects, and it also only includes a subset of all projects described in the TIP (statewide roadway and transit projects are not included).

The MPO is continuing to evaluate more sophisticated methods for conducting equity analyses on Regional Target-funded projects to ensure the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens from these projects across all communities in the Boston region. For instance, MPO staff are investigating data sources and analytical techniques to determine the most effective and appropriate ways to factor transportation equity populations into equity analyses. Future TIPs will describe new performance metrics and analyses as new methods are implemented.

Clean Air/Clean Communities— Tracking Performance Measures

The Boston Region MPO agrees that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to climate change. If climate trends continue as projected, the conditions in the Boston region will include a rise in sea level coupled with storm-induced flooding, and warmer temperatures that would affect the region’s infrastructure, economy, human health, and natural resources. Massachusetts is responding to this challenge by taking action to reduce the GHGs produced in the state, including those generated by the transportation sector. To that end, Massachusetts passed its Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires reductions of GHGs by 2020, and further reductions by 2050, relative to 1990 baseline conditions.

In prioritizing its capital investments for the TIP and to advance the MPO’s goal of promoting clean air and clean communities, the MPO uses evaluation criteria to assess the projected transportation-related emissions of each project. For more information about the MPO’s GHG monitoring and evaluation activities, see Appendix C.

Clean Air/Clean Communities—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

The MPO’s transportation investments advance its goal of creating an environmentally friendly transportation system by prioritizing projects that reduce GHGs and other transportation-related emissions as well as those that address environmental problems.

The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program highway investments are estimated to reduce nearly 12,200 annual tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and more than 18,300 annual kilograms of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) because of traffic flow improvements and increased bicycle and pedestrian travel8 .

Intersection Improvements

The Intersection Improvement projects in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program are estimated to reduce approximately 1,940 annual tons of CO2 and 2,200 annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, and CO because of traffic flow improvements and increased bicycle and pedestrian travel.

Complete Streets

The Complete Streets projects in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program are estimated to reduce more than 5,680 annual tons of CO2 and more than 8,900 annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, and CO because of traffic flow improvements and increased bicycle and pedestrian travel.

For example, the reconstruction of Boylston Street in Boston will provide significant reductions in vehicle delay through improvements at five intersections, and encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian trips through safer pedestrian crossings and new bicycle lanes.

Major Infrastructure

The Major Infrastructure highway projects in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program are estimated to reduce more than 4,470 annual tons of CO2 and nearly 6,690 annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, and CO because of traffic-flow improvements and increased bicycle and pedestrian travel. 9

For example, the reconstruction of Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will provide significant reductions in vehicle delay through intersection improvements, and encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian trips via safer pedestrian crossings and new bicycle lanes.

 

Economic Vitality—Tracking Performance Measures

The MPO seeks to ensure that the transportation network provides a strong foundation for an economically vibrant region, and for that reason, the MPO has set a goal for enhancing economic vitality. This goal supports the Boston region’s land-use plan, MetroFuture, which was developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC).

One of MetroFuture’s strategies is to coordinate transportation investments to guide economic growth in the region.

MAPC worked with its state partners at the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), as well as municipalities, to identify locations throughout the region appropriate for building housing stock and siting employers, and for preserving open space in the future. They also identified the infrastructure improvements required to support the outcomes planned for these local, regional, and state-level priority development and preservation areas.

This process identified locations that are best suited to support the type of continued economic vitality and future growth that the market demands, and which communities desire. Identifying these key growth and preservation locations also helps MAPC, the Boston Region MPO, and state agencies to understand both the infrastructure and technical-assistance needs required to support MetroFuture’s vision and to prioritize limited regional and state funding for development and land preservation.

The MPO has not yet established performance measures to track the coordination of land-use development and transportation investments. However, the MPO uses evaluation criteria to assess how well each project considered for TIP funding advances MetroFuture’s land-use planning. This means supporting investments in locations that have already been developed for residential, commercial, or industrial use; locations with adequate sewer and water infrastructure; areas identified for economic development by state, regional, and local planning; and areas with a relatively high density of existing development.

Economic Vitality—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

The MPO’s transportation investments advance economic vitality by prioritizing projects that provide access by multiple transportation modes to targeted development areas and that serve areas of concentrated development. The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program includes 21 highway investments that provide multimodal access to targeted development areas and 29 highway investments that serve areas of concentrated development.

Intersection Improvements

The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program includes four Intersection Improvements projects that provide multimodal access to targeted development areas that are well suited to support continued economic vitality and future growth.

Complete Streets

The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program includes 11 Complete Streets projects that provide multimodal access to targeted development areas. For example, the reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street) in Natick will provide access to a 40R site located at the former Paperboard site at 182 North Main Street.

Major Infrastructure

The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program includes five Major Infrastructure projects that provide multimodal access to five  targeted development areas well suited to support continued economic vitality and future growth.

For example, the reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue in Boston, Route 18 (Main Street) in Weymouth, and Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will expand transportation options and enhance access to transit to support future growth and facilitate new development.

In addition, the reconstruction of Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will leverage other investments in the form of an EOHED MassWorks award. This award will fund reconstruction of two intersections within the limits of the corridor reconstruction to address safety and congestion and support future development.

Figure 4-11 describes how the FFYs 2018–22 Regional Target-funded highway projects address various performance areas.

 

 Figure 4-11

FFYS 2018-22 TIP TARGET PROGRAM HIGHWAY PROJECTS: BY THE NUMBERS

 summary of FFYs 2018-22 TIP Highway Project Performance Metrics.

 


 

Next Steps in Advancing Performance Measures

As mentioned previously, two major next steps for the Boston Region MPO will be to

Target Setting for Federally Required Measures

States and MPOs are required to establish targets for the highway performance measures listed in Table 4-3. States will establish targets according to schedules established in various rulemakings on performance measures. Once these state targets have been set, for each measure, MPOs will decide whether to

The Boston Region MPO participates in the Transportation Program Managers Group’s subcommittee on performance measures, which is made up of staff of MassDOT and MPOs across the Commonwealth. The subcommittee focuses on performance measure and target coordination and shares knowledge and information regarding target-setting. The subcommittee will determine how MPOs will work with MassDOT’s targets as the MPOs decide whether to support a statewide target or set separate targets for their regions. During FFYs 2017 and 2018, the Boston Region MPO will set targets for highway performance measures.

Public transportation operators and MPOs are required to establish targets for the transit performance measures listed in Table 4-2. The Boston Region MPO has and will continue to coordinate with the MBTA, the MWRTA, and the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) on their target-setting processes. The input from these transit operators will inform how the Boston Region MPO sets transit-related targets.

As the MPO’s targets for highway and transit performance measures are established, future TIPs will describe these targets, and how the MPO anticipates that TIP investments will help achieve them.

Other Performance Measure and Target Development

The FAST Act’s requirements for performance management form the backbone of the Boston Region MPO’s PBPP process. However, the MPO may choose to monitor other performance measures related to its goals in addition to those that are federally required. During FFYs 2017 and 2018, the MPO will review other potential performance measures to see whether there are others it wishes to track on an ongoing basis. As part of this process, the MPO may choose to establish targets for some of these measures.

Ongoing Performance-based Planning and Programming Activities

Performance-based planning is an ongoing process that will continue to evolve as the MPO monitors and evaluates its planning and investment programs using performance measures. In addition to establishing measures and setting targets, the MPO will advance performance-based planning through its core planning documents by

In future years, if in its annual monitoring, the MPO sees that it is not making progress toward its targets, then the organization will need to consider modifying investment or policy priorities, and weigh the tradeoffs involved.

For example, allocating a greater share of funding to intersection improvements at high-crash locations may make significant progress toward reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries; however, it also may affect the MPO’s ability to meet system preservation targets for pavement or bridge conditions. By continuously monitoring and evaluating its progress, the MPO will be able to make these difficult decisions across competing goals and objectives in a more informed manner, resulting in greater outcomes for all concerned.

 

Chapter five

Determination of Air Quality Conformity

Background

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts—with the exception of the islands of Dukes County—meets federal air quality standards for ground-level ozone. Therefore, the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is not required to perform a conformity determination for ozone for its Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to prove that new transportation projects will not result in emission levels that violate the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

In addition, the requirement to perform a conformity determination for carbon monoxide for several cities in the Boston region has expired. On April 1, 1996, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville as in attainment (in compliance) for carbon monoxide emissions. Subsequently, a carbon monoxide maintenance plan was set up through the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) to ensure that emission levels did not increase. As the maintenance plan was in effect, past LRTPs included an air quality conformity analysis for these communities. As of April 1, 2016, however, the 20-year maintenance period for this carbon monoxide maintenance area expired and transportation conformity is no longer required for this pollutant in these communities. This is documented in a letter from the EPA dated May 12, 2016.

On April 22, 2002, the City of Waltham was re-designated as being in attainment for carbon monoxide emissions with an EPA-approved limited-maintenance plan. In areas that have approved limited-maintenance plans, federal actions requiring conformity determinations under the EPA’s transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the “budget test” (as budgets are not treated as being constraining in these areas for the length of the initial maintenance period). Any requirements for future “project-level” conformity determinations for projects located within this community will continue to use a “hot-spot” analysis to ensure that any new transportation projects in this area do not cause or contribute to violations of the carbon monoxide NAAQS.

Therefore, the MPO is not required to perform modeling analyses for a conformity determination for ozone or carbon monoxide; it is only required to provide the statement in the paragraph above regarding the Waltham “attainment area” in the TIP. However, the MPO still is required to provide a status report on the timely implementation of projects and programs that will reduce emissions from transportation sources—so-called transportation control measures—which are included in the Massachusetts SIP. This status report is provided below.

Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures

Transportation control measures (TCMs) were submitted to EPA as SIP revisions in 1979 and 1982, and also as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project. The TCMs in the 1979 and 1982 submissions were accomplished through construction or implementation of ongoing programs.

The TCMs submitted as part of the CA/T project mitigation have been documented in the LRTP as recommended or completed projects, except for the following three projects:

MassDOT works with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to implement TCMs documented in the SIP, and continues to keep the Boston Region MPO informed of the status of these projects through monthly reports at the MPO’s regularly scheduled meetings. The Boston Region MPO will continue to include relevant projects—including those implemented to provide equal or better emissions outcomes when the primary TMCs do not meet deadlines—in the LRTP and TIP until the process for completing all active TCMs has concluded. When the process has been completed, the MPO will amend the LRTP and future TIPs and their conformity determinations to document any changes (including any interim projects or programs).

A Status Report of Uncompleted SIP Projects

The status of the TCM SIP projects has been updated using the SIP Transit Commitments Status Report, submitted to DEP by MassDOT in June 2016, with updates from staff through April 2017. Highlights of the report are presented below. For a detailed description of these projects’ status, please visit the MassDOT website at

www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/PlanningProcess/StateImplementationPlan/SIPTransitCommitmentSubmissions.aspx

Red Line-Blue Line Connector – Final Design –
SIP Required Completion by December 2011

MassDOT initiated a process to amend the SIP to permanently and completely remove the obligation to prepare a final design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector. To that end, MassDOT officially sought approval from DEP to support a SIP amendment process. MassDOT did not propose to substitute any new projects in place of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector commitment, given the absence of any air-quality benefits associated with that project (final design only). Correspondence from MassDOT to DEP to formally initiate the amendment process was submitted on July 27, 2011. This letter is posted on MassDOT’s website.

On September 13, 2012, DEP held two hearings to accept public comment on MassDOT’s proposed amendments to regulation 310 CMR 7.36, Transit System Improvements. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement to complete the final design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector. Sixteen people attended the hearings, ten of whom gave oral testimony. All who spoke at the hearings were in favor of DEP preserving the commitment. DEP accepted written testimony until September 24, 2012.

On August 23, 2013, EPA sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide an update on Massachusetts’ air quality conformity. In that letter, EPA noted that the project to design the Red Line-Blue Line Connector had not met its completion date of December 2011, but that MassDOT was not obligated to implement interim emission-reduction projects because no emission reductions were associated with the design of the project.

On October 8, 2013, DEP approved a request made by MassDOT in July 2011 to revise 310 CMR 7.36 to remove the requirement that MassDOT complete the design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector. This revision to the SIP needed to be approved by EPA. The text of the revision is available on the MassDOT website at

www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/sip/October13UpdatedSIPReg.pdf.

On December 8, 2015, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register approving the SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on November 6, 2013. The final rule removes from the SIP the commitment to design the Red Line-Blue Line Connector project. Because this commitment has been removed, the status of this project will no longer be reported as part of conformity in future TIPs.

Funding Source: This commitment has been nullified.

Fairmount Line Improvements Project –
SIP Required Completion by December 2011

The Four Corners and Newmarket Stations on the Fairmount commuter rail line opened for service on July 1, 2013. All change orders have been paid and the project is officially closed out. The Talbot Avenue Station opened in November 2012.

A station at Blue Hill Avenue has been the subject of significant community controversy during the past seven years. Redesign of the station reached the 100 percent design phase, with plans submitted to MassDOT in March 2016. In October 2016, MassDOT updated the public on the design plans and the next steps toward implementing the project. The project team is now advancing with the understanding that continued coordination with the community is paramount. Construction is scheduled to begin in spring 2017, and the station to open in spring 2019.

MassDOT and the MBTA prepared a Petition to Delay and an Interim Emission Offset Plan to be implemented for the duration of the delay of the Fairmount Line Improvements project. MassDOT estimated the amount of emission reduction that would be expected from the implementation of the new Fairmount Line stations. With input from Fairmount Line stakeholders, MassDOT proposed offset measures that would meet emissions-reduction targets while the project remains under construction. The measures include providing shuttle bus service in Boston connecting Andrew Square to Boston Medical Center and increasing service on MBTA bus Route 31, which serves the Boston neighborhoods of Dorchester and Mattapan. These measures were implemented on January 2, 2012, and currently are in place.

Funding Source: The Commonwealth

Green Line Extension to Somerville and Medford Project − SIP Required Completion by December 2014

State-level environmental review, under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), was completed in July 2010. Documents from the federal-level environmental review, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), were submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in September 2011. A public hearing was held on October 20, 2011. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by FTA on July 9, 2012.

On January 5, 2015, the US Secretary of Transportation and the MBTA signed the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the Green Line Extension (GLX) project, approving $996,121,000 of FTA New Starts funding to support design and construction of the project. Execution of the FFGA was the result of many years of planning, design and pre-construction efforts by MassDOT and the MBTA, in collaboration with the FTA and its project management oversight consultant. Federal funding is scheduled to be paid between federal fiscal years 2015 and 2022. As noted in the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for fiscal year 2016, MassDOT and the MBTA would use Commonwealth funds in addition to federal funding to support design and construction activities.

As the project proceeded, it was later found that the estimated cost to construct the GLX project had grown from the $1.992 billion project cost established in January 2015. The new total cost was projected between $2.7 billion and $3.0 billion. The Commonwealth’s share of overall project costs would then be between $1.7 billion and $2.0 billion, rather than the initial budget of $996 million.

With the federal contribution capped at $996 million and the Commonwealth responsible for all project cost increases, MassDOT and the MBTA re-evaluated the GLX project in order to recommend to the Commonwealth if, and how, the project should proceed. Then MassDOT and the MBTA worked to identify opportunities to value engineer elements of the project in order to bring costs of the overall project closer to the original anticipated costs. The MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) and the MassDOT Board of Directors were briefed on August 24, 2015 and September 9, 2015, respectively, about these developments.

Before seeking additional state funding, MassDOT and the MBTA considered the following:

MassDOT and the MBTA actively sought stakeholder and public input on, as well as staff analysis of, several options.

Option 1 - Reduce the Project Scope and Project Costs

Downsize, delay, or eliminate the planned vehicle maintenance and storage facility.

Option 2 - Find Additional Sources of Funds, Other than State Bonds

Other sources could include the following:

Option 3 - Change Procurement Method

Halt the construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) project-delivery process and rebid the project—in smaller contract packages—using a more traditional procurement method.

Option 4 - Mothball or Cancel the Project

On May 9, 2016, the MBTA FMCB and the MassDOT Board of Directors voted to advance a scaled-down version of the project by submitting a redesign to federal regulators and continuing with plans for financing the project.

The GLX project management team developed a new approach to the GLX project that focused on maintaining the same functionality and service plan of the former concept (so as to not diminish ridership,  and air quality and transportation benefits), but to do so in a manner that utilized different construction approaches and designs to reduce costs. In addition, the project management team developed station designs and a vehicle maintenance facility that could provide the same function as originally envisioned, but that were greatly reduced in scope and costs.

Based on this redesign, the project management team developed a new project, which had a total capital cost estimate of $2.28 billion. While this is an increase of 15 percent over the prior costs, it is far more affordable for the MBTA and MassDOT. 

The MBTA is now moving forward on the project utilizing a design-build (DB) project delivery method. The MBTA issued an invitation to bid in November 2016 and identified three qualified DB teams. A draft request for proposal (RFP) was issued in March 2017. A final RFP will be issued in May 2017 with proposals and bids due in September 2017. The award of the contract will occur in November 2017 with construction beginning in the spring of 2018.

Prior to the cost increase, the project had been moving forward, with MassDOT and MBTA implementing a four-phased project-delivery plan.

Under the new project-delivery method, the contractor will be required to bring one branch of the system into revenue service in June 2021 and the second branch into service in September 2021. The vehicle maintenance facility will be available for use at the time of the opening of the first branch of service. 

New Green Line Vehicles: The MBTA vehicle procurement contract to purchase 24 Type 9 vehicles was awarded to CAF USA Inc. in an amount not to exceed $118,159,822 at the MassDOT Board meeting held on May 14, 2014. The notice to proceed for this contract was issued on September 4, 2014.

CAF is in the process of developing drawing packages for the preliminary design; and the MBTA project team and CAF continue to hold technical working sessions and project meetings. In addition, weekly project management meetings are held between MBTA and CAF to discuss project status, short-term schedules, and priorities. Monthly project status meetings are held to review and discuss all project issues, including schedules, deliverables, and milestones.

The first vehicle is to be delivered no later than 36 months from the notice to proceed. The pilot car delivery is scheduled between September and October 2017. The pilot car will receive comprehensive testing for six months followed by delivery of the remaining 22 vehicles, with the last car to be delivered by August 2018. All vehicles are expected to be in service in early 2019, well in advance of the opening of revenue service.

Somerville Community Path: The previous design included the construction of theCommunity Path from south of Lowell Street to the Inner Belt area of Somerville. As part of the redesign of the project, the MBTA found that the section of the Community Path from East Somerville Station (formerly known as Washington Street Station) to the Cambridge/North Point area was cost prohibitive. As a result, the new design includes the Community Path from its current terminal at Lowell Street to East Somerville Station. The Path Extension is not part of the SIP commitment and is currently under reconsideration.

SIP Requirement Status

By filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, procuring multiple design consultants, and publishing Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports, MassDOT met the first four interim milestones associated with the GLX project. MassDOT—which has committed substantial resources to the project, a top transportation priority of the Commonwealth and the largest expansion of the MBTA rapid transit system in decades—has transitioned the project from the planning and environmental review phases to design, engineering, and eventual construction, coupled with the tasks associated with applying for federal New Starts funding.

In the 2011 SIP Status Report, MassDOT reported that the GLX project would not meet the legal deadline of December 31, 2014.

The timeline for overall project completion listed above represents a substantial delay beyond the current SIP deadline of December 31, 2014; this delay triggered the need to provide interim emission reduction offset projects and measures for the period of the delay (beginning January 1, 2015). Working with the Central Transportation Planning Staff, MassDOT and the MBTA calculated the reductions of non-methane hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide—reductions equal to or greater than those projected for the GLX itself, as specified in the SIP regulation—that will be required for the period of the delay.

In June 2012, MassDOT released a list of potential mitigation ideas received from the public that could be used as offset measures. In the summer and fall of 2012, MassDOT elicited public comments on these potential measures. The MBTA created an internal working group to determine a final portfolio of interim mitigation measures to implement by December 31, 2014, the legal deadline for implementation of the GLX.

This work resulted in a recommendation to implement the following three interim mitigation measures, which collectively would meet the emissions-reduction target for the project:

The Petition to Delay was submitted to DEP on July 22, 2014. The petition expands further on the analysis and determination of the interim offset measures. DEP conditionally approved MassDOT’s request to delay the project and the implementation of the above mitigation measures. Both the Petition to Delay and the Conditional Approval are available on MassDOT’s website. These measures went into effect at the beginning of 2015 and will remain in place for as long as is necessary.

Funding Source: The Commonwealth

Russia Wharf Ferry Terminal

Former MassDOT Secretary Richard Davey approved construction of the permitted Russia Wharf Ferry Terminal in South Boston and a $460,000 ferry-service startup subsidy in October 2012. The 2005 facility plans and specifications were revised to meet the latest MassDOT Highway Division standards. The bid package was issued in the fall of 2013. A contractor was selected and the notice to proceed was issued in April 2014. Pre-construction activities progressed, but contractual issues associated with the project design led MassDOT to decide to rebid the contract. The new submission is due in May 2017. There is no regularly scheduled passenger water transportation service in this area, nor are there any plans to provide such a service.

The City of Boston, however, is undertaking design and engineering work to address the Old Northern Avenue Bridge, which will consider ferry vessel clearance. The city received a grant in 2012 to purchase two ferry vessels for use in Boston’s inner harbor, which could serve this ferry terminal. The Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) is working with the City of Boston, MassDOT, and other agencies to develop a business plan for potential ferry service from Lovejoy Wharf to the South Boston waterfront, as recommended in the 2015 South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan. This business plan will include current and future demand projections for ferry ridership, the number and size of ferries needed to satisfy the demand, and the cost for this service. The business plan should be completed in summer 2017, at which time MCCA could take over the City of Boston’s grant to help with future costs.

 

Funding Source: The Commonwealth

 

Chapter Six

Financial Constraint

 

The Boston Region MPO has the discretion to allocate its share of funds from the Federal-Aid Highway Program—the MPO’s Regional Targets—to projects identified as regional priorities as it sees fit. However, the allocation of those funds is constrained by projections of available federal aid.

As shown in the table below, the MPO has programmed its discretionary funds within the limits of projected funding for highway funding programs.  As such, the FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target highway funding program complies with financial constraint requirements.

 


TABLE 6-1:

Boston Region MPO Regional Target Highway Funding Program

MPO Discretionary Funds Sourced from the Federal-Aid Highway Program
(including state matching funds, but excluding earmarked funds)

Regional Target Funding Program

FFY 2018

FFY 2019

FFY 2020

FFY 2021

FFY 2022

FFYs 2018–22

Regional Target Obligation Authority

$95,038,936

$98,794,261

$98,029,447

$100,298,109

$101,539,859

$493,700,612

Regional Target Programmed

$95,024,497

$98,754,989

$98,013,787

$100,298,109

$101,539,859

$493,631,241

STBGP Target

$77,071,365

$80,826,690

$80,061,876

$82,330,538

$83,572,288

$403,862,757

      STBGP Programmed, including

$73,487,024

 $61,376,260

 $73,489,573

 $79,949,790

$82,858,135

$371,160,782

                        NHPP Programmed*

$1,988,367

$0

$0

$0

$0

$1,988,367

CMAQ Target

$10,741,776

$10,741,776

$10,741,776

$10,741,776

$10,741,776

$53,708,880

      CMAQ Programmed

$15,427,220

 $20,905,547

 $17,427,220

 $13,020,271

 $13,000,000

$79,780,258

HSIP Target

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$21,483,550

      HSIP Programmed

 $611,547

 $6,984,151

 $2,319,644

 $3,849,316

 $2,631,724

$16,396,382

TAP Target

$2,929,085

$2,929,085

$2,929,085

$2,929,085

$2,929,085

$14,645,425

      TAP Programmed

 $5,498,706

 $9,489,031

 $4,777,350

 $3,478,732

 $3,050,000

$26,293,819

 

   FFY: Federal Fiscal Year (October 1-September 30); STPBG: Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (formerly Surface Transportation Program or STP); CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program; HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program; TAP: Transportation Alternatives Program

*  National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds are included in the STPBG target programmed amounts.

 

 

Appendix A

Universe of Projects for Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Funding and Evaluation Results


This appendix lists information about transportation projects that cities and towns in the region identified as their priority projects to be considered for funding through the Boston Region MPO’s Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Program. It also contains the evaluation results of those projects scored by MPO staff based on the evaluation criteria.

Through an outreach process that seeks input from local officials and interested parties, the MPO staff compiles project requests and relevant information into a Universe of Projects list for the MPO. The Universe of Projects list includes projects in varied stages of development, from projects in the conceptual stage to those that are fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction. The MPO staff also collects data on each project to support the evaluation of projects. (Typically, at a minimum, a functional design report is required.)

The MPO’s project selection process uses evaluation criteria to make the process of selecting projects for programming in the TIP both more logical and more transparent. The criteria are based on the MPO’s goals and objectives, which were adopted for its current Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040

The MPO staff uses the project information and evaluations to prepare a First-Tier List of Projects that have high ratings in the evaluation process and could be made ready for advertising in the time frame of the TIP. The MPO staff then prepares a staff recommendation for the TIP taking into consideration the First-Tier List and factors such as the construction readiness of the project, the estimated project cost, community priority, geographic equity (to ensure that needs are addressed throughout the region), and consistency with the MPO’s LRTP.

The MPO discusses the First-Tier List of Projects, the staff recommendation, and other information before voting on a draft TIP to release for a 21-day public review and comment period.

Table A-1 presents the Universe of Projects that MPO staff developed for the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Table A-2 summarizes projects programmed with MPO Target funding in FFYs 2017-21, and Table A-3 summarizes the evaluation results for projects that MPO staff had enough data with which to evaluate and consider for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP.

 

TABLE A-1

Universe of Projects to Consider for Programming

 

TIP ID

Proponent

Project Description

MPO Investment Program

Evaluate and Consider for Programming

 

607738

Bedford

Minuteman Bikeway Extension, from Loomis St to the Concord T.L.

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608006

MassDOT

Framingham - Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation at Route 9 and Maynard Rd

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608164

Sudbury

Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608007

Cohasset

Corridor Improvements and Related Work on Justice Cushing Highway (Route 3A), from Beechwood St to the Scituate Town Line

Complete Streets

608275

Malden

Lighting and sidewalk improvements on Exchange St

Complete Streets

607305

MassDOT

Reading - Intersection signalization at Route  28 and Hopkins St

Intersection Improvements

608229

Acton

Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner, Route 111 (Massachusetts Ave) and Route 27 (Main St)

Intersection Improvements

Evaluated in FFY 2016 and Consider for Programming (review for need to update evaluations)

 

608348

Beverly

Rehabilitation of Bridge St

Complete Streets

606460

Boston

Improvements at Audobon Circle

Complete Streets

608449

Boston

Improvements along Commonwealth Ave (Route 30), from Alcorn St to Warren/Kelton Sts (Phase 3 and Phase 4)

Complete Streets

602310

Danvers

Reconstruction on Collins St, from Sylvan St to Centre and Holten Sts

Complete Streets

607899

Dedham

Dedham - Pedestrian Improvements along Bussey St, Including Superstructure Replacement, D-05-010, Bussey St over Mother Brook

Complete Streets

606002

Duxbury

Signal Installation at Route 3 (NB & SB) Ramps and Route 3A (Tremont St)

Complete Streets

601359

Franklin

Reconstruction of Pleasant St, from Main St to Chestnut St

Complete Streets

601607

Hull

Reconstruction of Atlantic Ave and Related Work, from Nantasket Ave to Cohasset Town Line

Complete Streets

605743

Ipswich

Resurfacing and Related Work on Central and South Main Sts

Complete Streets

604811

Marlborough

Reconstruction of Route 20 (East Main St), from Main St Easterly to Lincoln St

Complete Streets

604735

Medfield

Reconstruction of North St, from Frairy St to Pine St

Complete Streets

607777

Watertown

Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn St (Route 16)

Complete Streets

604745

Wrentham

Reconstruction of Taunton St (Route 152)

Complete Streets

601704

Newton

Reconstruction and Signal Improvements on Walnut St, from Homer St to Route 9

Complete Streets

608146

Marblehead

Intersection Improvements to Pleasant St at Village/Vine/Cross Sts

Intersection Improvements

604231

Marlborough

Intersection and Signal Improvements on Route 20 (East Main St/Boston Post Rd) at Concord Rd

Intersection Improvements

607249

MassDOT

Sudbury - Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Landham Rd

Intersection Improvements

606130

Norwood

Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Upland Rd/Washington St and Prospect St/Fulton St

Intersection Improvements

603739

MassDOT

Wrentham - Construction of I-495/Route 1A Ramps

Major Infrastructure

604638

MassDOT

Danvers and Peabody - Mainline Improvements on Route 128 (Phase II)

Major Infrastructure

605313

Natick

Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 (Worcester Street) and Interchange Improvements

Major Infrastructure

601513

Saugus

Interchange Reconstruction at Walnut St and Route 1 (Phase II)

Major Infrastructure

607981

Somerville

McGrath Boulevard Project

Major Infrastructure

Priorities, Not Ready for Evaluation

 

602038

Framingham

Edgell Road Corridor Project

Complete Streets

5399

Salem

Reconstruction of Bridge St, from Flint St to Washington St

Complete Streets

na

Salem

Boston St

Complete Streets

608051

Wilmington

Reconstruction on Route 38 (Main St), from Route 62 to the Woburn C.L.

Complete Streets

603865

MassDOT

Framingham - Signal and Intersection Improvements at Route 9 (Worcester Rd) and Temple St

Intersection Improvements

606109

Framingham

Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA and CSX Railroad

Intersection Improvements

604862

MassDOT

Bellingham - Ramp Construction and Relocation, I-495 at Route 126 (Hartford Ave)

Major Infrastructure

87790

MassDOT

Canton, Dedham, Norwood and Westwood - Interchange Improvements at I-95/I-93/University Ave/I-95 Widening

Major Infrastructure

PRC-Approved, Not Planned for Evaluation in FFY 2017

 

606304

Woburn

Middlesex Canal Park Improvements, from Alfred St to School St (Phase II - Segment 5)

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608070

Boston

Reconstruction of South Bank Park

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608658

Boston

Sidewalk, Wheelchair Ramp and crosswalk repairs at Various CA/T Locations (CRC 25) Contract 2

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608735

Boston

Sidewalk, Wheelchair Ramp and crosswalk repairs at Various CA/T Locations (CRC 25) Contract 3

Bicycle and Pedestrian

602929

Holliston

Multi-use Trail Construction on a Section of the Upper Charles Rail (2 Miles of Proposed 27 Miles - Phase I)

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608055

Boston

Grade Separated Multi-use Path Construction along the Paul Dudley White Path at North Harvard St Bridge over Charles River (Anderson Memorial Bridge)

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608741

Boston

Sidewalk, Wheelchair Ramp and crosswalk repairs at Various CA/T Locations (CRC 25) Contract 4

Bicycle and Pedestrian

604993

Cambridge

Innovation Boulevard Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements, Between Main St and Binney St (Phase I)

Bicycle and Pedestrian

608097

Woburn

Bridge Replacement and Related Work, W-43-028, Washington Street over I-95

Bridge

601906

MassDOT

Hudson - Bridge Replacement, Cox St over the Assabet River

Bridge

601507

Boston

Reconstruction of Tremont St, from Stuart St to Marginal Rd (1,830 Ft)

Complete Streets

601274

Boston

Reconstruction of Tremont St, from Court St to Boylston St

Complete Streets

603883

Canton

Reconstruction on Route 138, from I-93 to Dan Rd

Complete Streets

605974

Chelsea

Reconstruction on Washington Ave, from Revere Beach Parkway to Heard St

Complete Streets

608078

Chelsea

Reconstruction of Broadway, from City Hall Ave to the Revere City Line

Complete Streets

605745

Holliston

Reconstruction on Route 16 (Washington St), from Quail Run to the Sherborn T.L.

Complete Streets

605168

Hingham

Improvements on Route 3A from Otis St/Cole Rd Including Summer St and Rotary; Rockland St to George Washington Blvd

Complete Streets

602155

Holliston

Reconstruction of Norfolk St, from Sabina Dr to Holly La

Complete Streets

604697

Marlborough

Reconstruction of Farm Rd, from Cook La to Route 20 (Boston Post Rd)

Complete Streets

602252

Bolton

Reconstruction of Route 110 (Still River Rd)

Complete Streets

608045

Milford

Rehabilitation on Route 16, from Route 109 to Beaver St

Complete Streets

602364

Millis

Reconstruction of Village St, from Main St (Route 109) to the Medway Town Line

Complete Streets

604206

Milton

Rehabilitation of Central Ave, from Brook Rd to Eliot St

Complete Streets

608406

Milton

Reconstruction on Granite Ave, from Neponset River to Squantum St

Complete Streets

600932

Newton

Reconstruction on Route 30 (Commonwealth Ave), from Weston Town Line to Auburn St

Complete Streets

608707

Quincy

Reconstruction of Sea St

Complete Streets

608158

Westwood

Reconstruction of Canton St and Everett St

Complete Streets

607244

Winthrop

Reconstruction and Related Work along Winthrop St and Revere St Corridor

Complete Streets

607214

Stoughton

Reconstruction of Turnpike St

Complete Streets

608067

MassDOT

Woburn - Intersection Reconstruction at Route 3 (Cambridge Road) and Bedford Rd and South Bedford St

Intersection Improvements

604453

Bellingham

Improvements at 2 Locations: Mechanic St/Mendon St (Route 140) and North Main St/South Main St (Route 126)

Intersection Improvements

606666

Bolton

Intersection Improvements at I-495/Route 117 Interchange

Intersection Improvements

606318

Boston

Intersection Improvements at Gallivan Blvd (Route 203) and Morton St

Intersection Improvements

608755

Boston

Intersection Improvements at Morton St and Harvard St

Intersection Improvements

604911

Cambridge

Intersection Improvements at 7 Intersections on (Route 28 (Monsignor O'Brien Hwy)

Intersection Improvements

603137

Hingham

Intersection Improvements on Route 3A at Kilby St

Intersection Improvements

602462

Holliston

Signal Installation at Route 16/126 and Oak St

Intersection Improvements

608443

Littleton, Ayer

Intersection Improvements on Route 2A at Willow Road and Bruce St

Intersection Improvements

607342

Milton

Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 28 (Randolph Ave) and Chickatawbut Rd

Intersection Improvements

607889

Needham

Intersection Improvements at Highland Ave and First Ave

Intersection Improvements

608137

Newton

Intersection Improvements at Oak St, Christina St and Needham St

Intersection Improvements

608013

Quincy

Intersection Improvements at Sea St and Quincy Shore Dr

Intersection Improvements

605708

Sharon

Signal and Intersection Improvements on South Main St

Intersection Improvements

608279

Stoughton

Intersection Improvements and Related Work at Central St, Canton St and Tosca Dr

Intersection Improvements

607727

Beverly

Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II)

Major Infrastructure

606475

Boston

Replacement of Allston I-90 Elevated Viaduct, B-16-359, Including Interchange Reconstruction Beacon Park Yard Layover and West Station

Major Infrastructure

608730

Boston

Fort Point Channel Water Transportation Facility Construction

Major Infrastructure

602091

Concord

Improvements and Upgrades to Concord Rotary (Routes 2/2A/119)

Major Infrastructure

608015

Concord

Reconstruction and Widening on Route 2, from Sandy Pond Rd to Bridge Over MBTA/B&M Railroad

Major Infrastructure

608096

MassDOT

Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield - Improvements Along Route 128/95, From North of Interchange 37 to Interchange 40, Including Modifications to Interchange 38

Major Infrastructure

603345

MassDOT

Hudson and Marlborough - Reconstruction on Routes I-290 and 495 and Bridge Replacement

Major Infrastructure

605012

MassDOT

Malden, Revere and Saugus - Reconstruction & Widening on Route 1, from Route 60 to Route 99

Major Infrastructure

607701

MassDOT

Southborough and Westborough - Improvements at I-495 and Route 9

Major Infrastructure

605605

MassDOT

Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield and Woburn - Interchange Improvements to I-93/I-95

Major Infrastructure

606472

Newton

Breakdown Lane Construction at Various Locations, From Route 128 to Exit 17

Major Infrastructure

607940

Newton

Improvements of Route 128/I-95 and Grove St

Major Infrastructure

607935

Weston

New Parking Construction Near the M7 Maintenance Garage

Parking

 

NOTE:  Orange cells indicate projects that Boston Region MPO Staff have received updates about either from municipalities or the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. 

Projcts in BOLD are in the LRTP: project #605313 is in the 2021-25 LRTP and projects #607981 and #606109 are in the 2026-30 LRTP.

na = this is not an active MassDOT project, but is a priority of the city.

 

TABLE A-2

Projects Programmed in FFYs 2017-2021 with MPO Target Funds

 

TIP ID

Proponent

Project Description

Status (TIP/LRTP Year)

MPO Investment Program

607309

Hingham

Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby St from Pond Park Rd to Cushing St

2017

Complete Streets

604810

Marlborough

Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple St)

2017

Complete Streets

604935

Woburn

Reconstruction of Montvale Ave, from I-93 Interchange to Central St

2017/2016-2020

Complete Streets

29492

Bedford, Billerica & Burlington

Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Drive North to Manning Rd (Phase III)

2017/2016-2020

Major Infrastructure

603711

MassDOT

Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on I-95/Route 128 (Add-a-Lane Contract 5)

2017-2018/2016-2020

Major Infrastructure

601630

Weymouth

Reconstruction & Widening on Route 18 (Main St), from Highland Pl to Route 139

2017-2019/2016-2020

Major Infrastructure

1570

Multiple

Green Line Extension Project - Extension to College Ave with the Union Square Spur

2017-2021/
2016-2020 and 2021-2025

Major Infrastructure

605110

Brookline

Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square (Gateway East)

2018

Intersection Improvements

600518

MassDOT

Hingham - Intersection Improvements at Derby St, Whiting St (Route 53) and Gardner St

2018

Intersection Improvements

606635

Newton & Needham

Reconstruction of Highland Ave, Needham St & Charles River Bridge, from Webster St to Route 9

2018

Complete Streets

604989

Southborough

Reconstruction of Main St (Route 30), from Sears Rd to Park St

2018

Complete Streets

605789

Boston

Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Blvd

2019

Complete Streets

607652

Everett

Reconstruction of Ferry St, South Ferry St and a Portion of Elm St

2019

Complete Streets

607428

Hopedale & Milford

Resurfacing & Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Main St), from Water St to the Hopedale T.L. and the Intersection of Route 140

2019

Complete Streets

606043

Hopkinton

Signal & Intersection Improvements on Route 135

2019

Intersection Improvements

608352

Salem

Canal Street Rail Trail Construction (Phase 2)

2019

Bicycle and Pedestrian

605034

Natick

Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main St), from North Ave to the Wayland Town Line

2019/2021-2025

Complete Streets

604123

Ashland

Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond St), from the Framingham T.L. to the Holliston T.L.

2020

Complete Streets

606453

Boston

Improvements on Boylston St, from Intersection of Brookline Ave & Park Dr to Ipswich St

2020

Complete Streets

602077

Lynn

Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield St), from Great Woods Rd to Wyoma Square

2020

Complete Streets

602261

Walpole

Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main St), from the Norwood Town Line to Route 27

2020

Complete Streets

606226

Boston

Reconstruction of Rutherford Ave, from City Square to Sullivan Square

2020-2021

Complete Streets

606501

Holbrook

Reconstruction of Union St (Route 139), from Linfield St to Centre St/Water St

2021

Complete Streets

605857

Norwood

Intersection Improvements at Route 1 & University Avenue/Everett Street

2021

Intersection Improvements

608347

Beverly

Intersection Improvements at Three Locations: Cabot St (Route 1A/97) at Dodge St (Route 1A), County Way, Longmeadow Rd and Scott St, McKay St at Balch St and Veterans Memorial Bridge (Route 1A) at Rantoul, Cabot, Water and Front Sts

2121

Intersection Improvements

608228

Framingham

Reconstruction of Union Ave, from Proctor St to Main St

2121

Complete Streets

604996

Woburn

Bridge Replacement, New Boston St over MBTA

2121/2016-2020

Major Infrastructure

 

 

TABLE A-3

Project Evaluation Results

 

TIP ID Proponent(s) Project Name DRAFT TOTAL SCORE
(out of 134)
FINAL TOTAL SCORE
(out of 134)
 SAFETY
(30 possible points)
 Crash Severity Value: Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index
 (up to 5 points)
 Crash Severity Rate: Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index per VMT 
(up to 5 points)
 Improves truck-related safety issue 
(up to 5 points)
 Improves bicycle safety 
(up to 5 points)
 Improves pedestrian safety 
(up to 5 points)
 Improves safety or removes an at-grade railroad crossing 
(up to 5 points)
 SYSTEM PRESERVATION
(29 possible points)
 Improves substandard roadway bridge(s) 
(up to 3 points)
 Improves substandard pavement 
(up to 6 points)
 Improves substandard traffic signal equipment 
(up to 6 points)
 Improves transit asset(s) 
(up to 3 points)
 Improves substandard sidewalk(s) 
(up to 3 points)
 Improves emergency response 
(up to 2 points)
 Improves ability to respond to extreme conditions 
(up to 6 points)
 CAPACITY MANAGEMENT/MOBILITY
(29 possible points)
 Reduces transit vehicle delay 
(up to 4 points)
 Improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility 
(up to 5 points)
 Improves bicycle network 
(up to 4 points)
 Improves intermodal accommodations/connections to transit
 (up to 6 points)
 Improves truck movement 
(up to 4 points)
 Reduces vehicle congestion 
(up to 6 points)
 CLEAN AIR/CLEAN COMMUNITIES
(16 possible points)
 Reduces CO2 
(up to 5 points)
 Reduces other transportation-related emissions (VOC, Nox, CO)
 (up to 5 points)
 Addresses environmental impacts 
(up to 4 points)
 Is in an EOEEA-certified "Green Community" 
(up to 2 points)
 TRANSPORTATION EQUITY
(12 possible points)
 Serves Title VI/non-discrimination populations 
(up to 12 points)
 ECONOMIC VITALITY
(18 possible points)
 Serves targeted development site 
(up to 6 points)
 Provides for development consistent with the compact growth strategies of MetroFuture 
(up to 5 points)
 Provides multimodal access to an activity center 
(up to 4 points)
 Leverages other investments (non-TIP funding) 
(up to 3 points)
Bicycle/Pedestrian
607738 Bedford Minuteman Bikeway Extension, from Loomis Street to the Concord T.L. 38 47 7 1 0 0 3 3 0 13 0 6 4 0 3 0 0 15 0 5 4 4 0 2 7 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 0 2 2 0
608164 Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D 38 40 7 1 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 16 0 5 4 4 1 2 9 1 2 4 2 1 1 4 0 2 2 0
608006 Framingham (MassDOT) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation at Route 9 and Maynard Road 26 26 11 2 3 0 0 5 1 6 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 0 2 2 0
Complete Streets
607777 Watertown Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn St. (Route 16) 68 75 18 5 2 3 3 5 0 14 0 4 6 1 2 1 0 18 4 2 2 4 0 6 12 4 4 2 2 3 3 10 4 2 3 1
608078 Chelsea Reconstruction of Broadway, from City Hall Ave to the Revere City Line 61 61 17 5 5 0 3 4 0 10 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 1 4 0 0 8 2 3 1 2 12 12 9 4 2 3 0
608348 Beverly Rehabilitation of Bridge St. 59 59 12 3 2 2 3 2 0 13 0 6 4 0 3 0 0 13 1 0 2 4 0 6 9 3 3 1 2 4 4 8 4 1 3 0
608275 Malden Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements on Exchange Street 47 54 9 1 1 0 2 5 0 8 0 4 0 0 3 1 0 12 0 4 2 6 0 0 5 1 1 1 2 10 10 10 2 3 2 3
602310 Danvers Reconstruction on Collins St. 50 50 9 2 2 1 2 2 0 12 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 1 2 1 4 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 3 2 2 0
601607 Hull
Reconstruction of Atlantic Ave. and related work 44 44 11 1 1 1 4 4 0 13 0 6 0 0 3 2 2 8 0 4 1 2 1 0 6 1 1 4 0 2 2 4 0 2 2 0
601704 Newton Reconstruction and signal improvements on Walnut St. 42 42 10 3 2 1 2 2 0 12 0 6 4 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 1 6 0 0 4 -1 1 2 2 0 0 9 4 2 3 0
605743 Ipswich Resurfacing and related work on Central and South Main Sts. 38 38 10 2 2 2 2 2 0 9 0 4 0 0 2 1 2 5 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 2 2 8 3 3 2 0
608007 Cohasset Corridor Improvements and Related Work on Justice Cushing Highway (Route 3A), from Beechwood Street to the Scituate Town Line 36 36 15 4 2 3 3 3 0 7 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 6 0 4 1 0 1 0 5 1 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 1 2 0
604735 Medfield Reconstruction of North St. 29 29 7 1 1 0 3 2 0 8 0 4 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 1 2 0 1 1 7 3 2 2 0
604745 Wrentham Reconstruction of Taunton St. (Route 152) 29 29 8 1 1 1 2 3 0 7 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 1 1 4 0 2 2 0
607899 Dedham Pedestrian improvements along Bussey St. 25 25 7 2 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 2 7 7 3 0 2 1 0
Intersection Improvements
606130 Norwood Intersection improvements at Route 1A and Upland Rd./Washington St. and Prospect St./Fulton St. 47 53 13 1 2 4 2 4 0 10 0 6 0 0 3 1 0 17 2 4 1 4 2 4 3 1 1 1 0 3 3 7 3 1 3 0
608229 Acton Intersection Improvements at Massachusetts Avenue (Route 111) and Main Street (Route 27) (Kelly's Corner) 45 45 15 3 4 2 3 3 0 8 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 10 0 4 1 0 1 4 8 2 1 3 2 0 0 4 0 2 2 0
608146 Marblehead Intersection improvements to Pleasant St. at Village/Vine/Cross Sts. 36 40 8 1 1 0 3 3 0 10 0 6 0 0 3 0 1 9 0 4 1 4 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 4 2 3 0
604231 Marlborough Intersection and signal improvements on Route 20 (East Main St./Boston Post Rd.) at Concord Rd. 39 39 6 2 2 0 0 2 0 12 0 4 6 0 2 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 4 7 2 2 1 2 3 3 5 3 1 1 0
607249 Sudbury (MassDOT) Intersection improvements at Route 20 and Landham Rd. 37 37 16 2 5 3 3 3 0 7 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 0 0 5 3 0 2 0
607305 Reading (MassDOT) Intersection Signalization at Route 28 & Hopkins Street 34 34 6 1 1 0 0 4 0 12 0 4 4 0 2 1 1 5 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 7 2 3 2 0
606002 Duxbury Signal installation at Route 3 (NB and SB) ramps and Route 3A (Tremont St.) 33 33 6 2 1 1 0 2 0 11 0 4 6 0 0 1 0 10 0 4 0 0 2 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0
Major Infrastructure
607981 Somerville McGrath Boulevard project 68 68 13 3 2 0 4 4 0 14 0 6 6 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 1 6 0 4 8 3 3 0 2 10 10 12 4 5 3 0
608449 Boston Commonwealth Avenue, phases 3 and 4 67 67 17 3 2 0 5 4 3 12 0 4 4 0 2 2 0 11 0 0 4 6 1 0 8 2 3 1 2 8 8 11 4 4 3 0
605313 Natick (MassDOT) Bridge replacement, Route 27 (North Main St.) over Route 9 (Worcester St.) 53 56 18 5 3 3 3 4 0 19 3 6 6 0 3 0 1 10 0 4 1 4 1 0 2 -1 -1 2 2 1 1 6 0 3 3 0
601513 Saugus (MassDOT) Interchange reconstruction at Walnut St. and Route 1 (phase II) 42 42 9 3 1 0 2 3 0 13 0 6 6 0 0 1 0 9 1 4 1 0 1 2 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 0 1 3 0
603739 Wrentham Construction of I-495/Route 1A ramps 35 35 9 2 2 5 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 6 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
604638 Peabody (MassDOT) Mainline improvements on Route 128 (phase II) 34 34 10 5 1 4 0 0 0 10 3 6 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 3 3 3 1 1 1 0

 

Appendix B

Roadway Project Information Forms & Evaluation

introduction

This appendix provides an explanation of the Project Information Form that is used by the MPO to evaluate roadway projects that are candidates for programming in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Some information in these forms is provided by the project proponent and other information is provided by MPO staff or by various state agencies. MPO staff and project proponents update these forms when new information about projects becomes available. The information gathered is then used during project evaluations, when the reviewers assess each candidate project by using evaluation criteria that reflect MPO visions and policies.

The first part of this appendix describes all of the information collected through the online Project Information Forms and the source of the information. The following sections describe the MPO’s TIP project evaluation criteria and the point system used for scoring projects. These sections are organized based on the MPO’s goals for Safety, System Preservation, Capacity Management/Mobility, Clean Air/Clean Communities, Transportation Equity, and Economic Vitality.

Project Information Forms are available through the TIP Interactive Database on the MPO website, www.ctps.org/apps/tip11/tip_query.html. Proponents must log into the database and may enter project information online. Other information is input by MPO staff or automatically updated through links to other databases.

Under the current organization of the online TIP database, each section includes data gathered from various transportation-related databases as well as proponent provided information about the need for the project and the specific improvements proposed. Project information fields from transportation-related databases that are entered and maintained by MPO staff are shown under Project Background Information and numbered 1 through 41. Proponent provided fields are denoted by a ‘P.’

Reviewing these aspects of project data collection and management as well as project evaluation illustrates the connection between the information entered into the Project Information Forms and the points awarded to each project.

Roadway Project information Forms

Overview

Project Background Information

1    ID Number  

The ID number is usually the MassDOT Project Information System (PROJIS) number assigned to the project. If the project does not have a PROJIS number, an identification number will be assigned to the project by the MPO for internal tracking purposes.

2    Municipality

The municipality (or municipalities) in which the project is located.

3    Project Name

The name of the project. (Source: MassDOT)

4    Project Category

Projects are categorized by MPO staff. The categories will be changed to reflect the applicable State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Program and the MPO Investment Category for each project. The STIP Program categories are listed for each project in Chapter 3 of this document. The current project categories used in the online TIP database are as follows:

5    MassDOT Highway Division District

The MassDOT Highway District in which the project is located.

6    MAPC Subregion

The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) subregion in which the project is located.

7    MAPC Community Type

The type of community in which the project is located. Community types are defined by the MAPC based on land-use and housing patterns, recent growth trends, and projected development patterns.

8    Estimated Cost

The estimated total cost of the project. (Source: MassDOT)

9    Evaluation Rating

The number of points awarded to the project in the MPO’s project evaluation process.

10   Description

A description of the project, including its primary purpose, major elements, and geographic limits. (Source: MassDOT Project Information website, www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx.)

11   Project Length (Miles)

Total length of the project in miles.

12   Project Lane Miles

Total lane miles of the project.

Community Support

P1  Community Priority

The priority rank of the project as determined by the community. (Source: Proponent)

Additional Status

13   MPO/CTPS Study

Past studies or reports, funded through the Unified Planning Work Program, that were conducted within the project area.

14   Air Quality Status

The air quality status of the project in the MPO’s travel demand model. Projects with “exempt” status do not add capacity to the transportation system. Projects with “model” status add capacity to the transportation system and are included in the travel demand model.

Staff Comments

TIP Contact

The main municipal contact for TIP projects.

 

Project Design Status

Project “readiness” is a determination of the appropriate year of programming for a project. In order to make this determination, the MPO tracks project development milestones and coordinates with the MassDOT Highway Division to estimate when a project will be ready for advertising.

All non-transit projects programmed in the first fiscal element of the TIP must be advertised before the end of the federal fiscal year (FFY), September 30. That funding authorization is not transferred to the next FFY; therefore any “leftover” funds are effectively “lost” to the region. If a project in the first fiscal element of the TIP is determined to be “not ready to be advertised before September 30,” it will be removed from the TIP and replaced with another project by amendment.

For projects in the first fiscal element of the TIP, it is important that project proponents communicate any perceived problems that may affect the schedule to the MPO as soon as possible.

Project Background Information

15   Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Status

Projects are recorded in the MPO database as either, advertised, programmed, pre-TIP, or conceptual:

16   Functional Design Report (FDR) Status

The year that a functional design report was completed, if one has been prepared for the project. 

17   Design Status

Current design status of the project in the MassDOT Highway Division’s design process. Dates are provided where available.

Design status is noted as follows:

(Source: MassDOT Project Info database)

18   Right-of-Way (ROW) Requirement

A notation of whether or not ROW acquisition is required for the project:

Required – ROW action is required for completion of the project

Not Required – No ROW action required for completion of the project

(Source: MassDOT Project Info database)

19   ROW Responsibility

The party responsible for providing ROW:

MassDOT Responsibility – Providing the required right-of-way is the responsibility of MassDOT.

Municipal Responsibility – Providing the required right-of-way is the responsibility of the municipality.

Municipal Approval – Municipal approval has been given to the right-of-way plan (with date of approval)

(Source: MassDOT Project Info)

20   ROW Certification

ROW certification status:

Expected – Expected date of right-of-way plan and order of taking

Recorded – Date the ROW plan and order of taking were recorded at the Registry of Deeds

Expires – Expiration date of the rights of entry, easements, or order of taking

(Source: MassDOT Project Info)

21   Required Permits

Permits required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).

Possible required permits include the following:

(Source: MassDOT Project Info database)

Safety

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO safety objectives:

Project Background Information

22   Top 200 Rank

Ranks of highest crash intersection clusters in the project area listed within MassDOT’s top 200 High-Crash Intersection Locations. The crash rankings are weighted by crash severity as indicated by Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) values. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division 2012-14 Top Crash Locations Report)

23   EPDO/Injury Value

EPDO is an index used to assess the severity of crashes involving motor vehicles. Weighted values are assigned to each crash based on whether the crash resulted in property damage (weighted by one), injury (weighted by five), or a fatality (weighted by 10). (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2012-14 Top Crash Locations Report)

24   Crash Rate/Crashes per Mile

Crash rates for intersection projects are listed as total crashes per million vehicles entering the intersection. Crash rates for arterial projects are listed as total crashes per mile. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2012-14 Top Crash Locations Report)

25   Bicycle-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of crashes involving bicyclists in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2012-14 Top Crash Locations Report)

26   Pedestrian-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of crashes involving pedestrians in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-13)

27   Truck-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of crashes involving truck crashes in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-13)

Proponent Provided Information

P2  What is the primary safety need associated with this project and how does it address that need?

Responses to this question describes the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective, discussing the existing safety issues the project is designed to address and how the design would accomplish the needed improvements. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Highway Division Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

System Preservation

The evaluation criteria below serve to guide decision-making about investments that implement the following MPO system preservation objectives:

Project Background Information

28   Existing Pavement Condition

Pavement Roughness (IRI) – International Roughness Index (IRI) rating reflects the calibrated value in inches of roughness per mile. IRI ratings are classified as follows:

(Source: MassDOT Roadway Inventory File)

29   Equipment Condition

Existing signal equipment condition. (Source: Congestion Management Process (CMP), Massachusetts permitted signal information, municipal signal information, and submitted design.)

30   Natural Hazard Zones**

**Please refer to the All-hazards Planning Application (www.ctps.org/map/www/apps/eehmApp/pub_eehm_index.html) for more information on natural hazard zones.

Proponent Provided Information

P3  What are the infrastructure condition needs or issues of the project area?

Responses to this question provide additional pavement information from municipal pavement management programs. In addition, qualitative descriptions of existing problems or anticipated needs can be provided. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

P4  How does this project address the infrastructure condition needs or issues in the project area?

Responses to this question include details regarding the pavement management system employed by the community or agency, and how this system will maximize the useful life of any pavement repaired or replaced by the project. (Source: Proponent)

P5  What is the primary security need associated with this project and how does it address that need?

Responses to this question describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective, discussing the existing security issues the project is designed to address and how the design will accomplish those needed improvements. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Highway Division Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

 

Capacity Management/Mobility

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO capacity management/mobility objectives:

Project Background Information

31   Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Pedestrian Facilities:

Bicycle Facilities:

(Source: MassDOT Bicycle Facility Inventory and Roadway Inventory File and MPO bicycle GIS coverage)

32   Transit Vehicles Use of Roadway

The fixed route transit vehicles that use the roadway are identified.

33   Usage

34   A.M./P.M. Travel Time Index***

The Travel Time Index directly compares peak-period travel time conditions with free-flow travel time conditions. The Travel Time Index indicates how much contingency time should be considered to ensure an on-time arrival during the peak period versus optimum travel times. The Travel Time Index equals the average peak-period travel time divided by the free-flow travel time.

This information is taken from the Boston Region MPO’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) Arterial Performance Dashboard. If a Project Funding Application Form does not have any CMP data listed, this does not necessarily mean that the roadway or intersection does not experience congestion problems; this simply means that data from the CMP are not available.

35   A.M./P.M. Speed Index***

The Speed Index equals the average speed divided by the posted speed limit of a Traffic Message Channel (TMC). The Speed Index indicates congestion more accurately than travel speeds alone because low travel speeds may be a result of low speed limits on certain facilities.

This information taken from the CMP Arterial Performance Dashboard. If a Project Funding Application Form does not have any CMP data listed, this does not necessarily mean that the roadway or intersection does not experience congestion problems; this simply means that data from the CMP are not available.

***Please refer to the CMP Arterial Performance Dashboard (www.ctps.org/map/www/apps/arterialHighwayPerformanceDashboard/index.html) for data on roadway congestion in the MPO region.

Proponent Provided Information

P6  What is the primary mobility need for this project and how does it address that need?

Responses to this question describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective. The information provided explains how the project will address the existing or anticipated mobility issues, improve level of service and reduces congestion, provide multimodal elements (for example, access to transit stations, parking, or bicycle or pedestrian connections), enhance freight mobility, and close gaps in the existing transportation system.

For roadway projects, it is the MPO’s and MassDOT’s policy that auto congestion reductions not occur at the expense of pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

P7  What intelligent transportation systems (ITS) elements does this project include?

Examples of ITS elements include new signal systems or emergency vehicle override applications. (Source: Proponent)

P8  How does the project improve access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation? How does the project support MassDOT’s mode shift goal of tripling the share of walking, biking, and transit travel?

Responses to this question describe what improvements are in the project for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation, and what level of improvement will be achieved over existing conditions. (Source: Proponent)

Clean Air/Clean Communities

The evaluation criteria below serve to guide decision-making about investments that implement the following MPO clean air/clean communities objectives:

Project Background Information

36   CO2 Impact

The quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) estimated to be reduced by the project. (Source: MPO Database)

37   Located in a Green Community

Indicates if the project is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) certified Green Community. (Source: EOEEA)

38   Located in an Area of Critical Environmental Concern

Indicates if the project is located in areas designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Source: MassGIS)

39   Located adjacent to (within 200 feet of) a waterway

Indicates if the project is within 200 feet of a hydrographic feature, including surface water (lakes, ponds, and reservoirs), flats, rivers, streams, and other water bodies. Areas within two hundred feet of a hydrographic feature are protected by the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act. (Source: MassGIS)

Proponent Provided Information

P9  How does the project relate to community character?

Responses to this question indicate if the project is located in an existing community or neighborhood center or other pedestrian-oriented area, and discuss  the community context for the project (cultural and historical aspects for example, and the effect this project will have on community character. (Source: Proponent)

P10 What are the environmental impacts of the project?

Response to this question address how the project will improve air or water quality, or reduce noise levels in the project area and in the region? Air quality improvements can come from reductions in the number or length of vehicle trips or from reductions in vehicle cold starts. Water quality improvements can result from reductions in runoff from impervious surfaces, water supply protection, and habitat protection. Noise barriers can reduce noise impacts. (Source: Proponent)

Transportation Equity

The evaluation criteria below serve to guide decision-making about investments that implement the following MPO transportation equity objectives:

Proponent Provided Information

P11 Are any other transportation equity issues addressed by this project?

This question relates to projects that serve Title VI/non-discrimination populations. (Source: Proponent)

Economic Vitality

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide decision-making about investments that implement the following MPO economic vitality objectives:

Proponent Provided Information

P12 How is the project consistent with local land-use policies? How does the project advance local efforts to improve design and access?

Responses to this question explain how the project will support existing or proposed local land-use policies. (Source: Proponent)

P13 How does the zoning of the area within one-half mile of this project support transit-oriented development and preserve any new roadway capacity?

Responses to this question address the project’s impact on adjacent land uses. Consideration is given to whether there a local project currently under development that would provide a better balance between housing and jobs in this corridor. (Source: Proponent)

P14 How is the project consistent with state, regional, and local economic development priorities?

Responses to this question explain how the project will support economic development in the community or in the project area. (Source: Proponent)

Other

Cost per Unit

Two measures of cost per unit are derived by dividing project cost by quantified data in the MPO database. These measures can be used to compare similar types of projects.

40   Cost per User

Cost divided by average daily traffic (ADT)

41   Cost per Lane Mile

Cost divided by proposed total lane miles

 

project evaluation criteria and scoring

Below is a summary of the point system used in the MPO’s project evaluation process.

Safety

Safety Evaluation Scoring (30 total points possible):

Crash Severity Value: EPDO Index (up to 5 points)

+5 EPDO value of 300 or more

+4 EPDO value between 200-299

+3 EPDO value between 100-199

+2 EPDO value between 50-99

+1 EPDO value less than 50

+0 No EPDO value

 

Crash Severity Rate: EPDO Index per Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) (up to 5 points)

+5 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT of 20 or more

+4 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT between 15-20

+3 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT between 10-15

+2 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT between 5-10

+1 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT less than 5

+0 No EPDO rate

 

Improves truck-related safety issue (up to 5 points)

+3 High total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+2 Medium total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+1 Low total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+0 Does not implement truck safety countermeasures

 

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

 

+2 Improves truck safety at HSIP Cluster

 

Improves bicycle safety (up to 5 points)

+3 High total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

+2 Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

+1 Low total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

  0  Does not implement bicycle safety countermeasures

 

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

 

+2 Improves bicycle safety at HSIP Bicycle Cluster

+1 Improves bicycle safety at HSIP Cluster

 

Improves pedestrian safety (up to 5 points)

+3 High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

+2 Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

+1 Low total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

  0  Does not implement pedestrian safety countermeasures

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

+2 Improves pedestrian safety at HSIP Pedestrian Cluster

+1 Improves pedestrian safety at HSIP Cluster

 

Improves safety or removes an at-grade railroad crossing (up to 5 points)

+5 Removes an at-grade railroad crossing

+3 Significantly improves safety at an at-grade railroad crossing

+1 Improves safety at an at-grade railroad crossing

  0  Does not include a railroad crossing

 

System Preservation

System Preservation Evaluation Scoring (29 total points possible):

Improves substandard roadway bridge(s) (up to 3 points)

+3 Condition is structurally deficient and improvements are included in the project

+1 Condition is functionally obsolete and improvements are included in the project

+0 Does not improve substandard bridge or does not include a bridge

 

Improves substandard pavement (up to 6 points)

+6 IRI rating greater than 320: Poor and pavement improvements are included in the project

+4 IRI rating between 320 and 191: Fair and pavement improvements are included in the project

  0  IRI rating less than 190: Good or better

 

Improves substandard signal equipment condition (up to 6 points)

+6 Poor condition, improvements are included in the project

+4 Fair condition, improvements are included in the project

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves transit asset(s) (up to 3 points)

+2 Brings transit asset into State of Good Repair

+1 Meets an identified-need in an Asset Management Plan

+0 Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves substandard sidewalk(s) (up to 3 points)

+3 Poor condition and sidewalk improvements are included in the project

+2 Fair condition and sidewalk improvements are included in the project

+0 Sidewalk condition is good or better

 

Improves emergency response (up to 2 points)

+1 Project improves an evacuation route, diversion route, or alternate diversion route

+1 Project improves an access route to or in proximity to an emergency support location

 

Improves ability to respond to extreme conditions (up to 6 points)

+2 Addresses flooding problem and/or sea level rise and enables facility to function in such a condition

+1 Brings facility up to current seismic design standards

+1 Addresses critical transportation infrastructure

+1 Protects freight network elements

+1 Implements hazard mitigation or climate adaptation plans

 

Capacity Management/Mobility

Capacity Management/Mobility Evaluation Scoring (29 total points possible):

Reduces transit vehicle delay (up to 4 points)

+3 5 hours or more of daily transit vehicle delay reduced

+2 1-5 hours of daily transit vehicle delay reduced

+1 Less than one hour of daily transit vehicle delay reduced

+0 Does not reduce transit delay

 

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

+1 Improves one or more key bus route(s)

 

Improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility (up to 5 points)

+2 Adds new sidewalk(s) (including shared-use paths)

+2 Improves ADA accessibility

+1 Closes a gap in the pedestrian network

  0  Does not improve pedestrian network

 

Improves bicycle network (up to 4 points)

+3 Adds new physically separated bicycle facility (including shared-use paths)

+2 Adds new buffered bicycle facility

+1 Adds new standard bicycle facility

+1 Closes a gap in the bicycle network

+0 Does not improve bicycle network

 

Improves intermodal accommodations/ connections to transit (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree

+0 Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves truck movement (up to 4 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree

+0 Does not meet or address criteria

 

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

+1 Addresses MPO-identified bottleneck location

 

Project reduces congestion (up to 6 points)

+6 400 hours or more of daily vehicle delay reduced

+4 100-400 hours of daily vehicle delay reduced

+2 Less than 100 hours of daily vehicle delay reduced

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Clean Air/Clean Communities

Clean Air/Clean Communities Evaluation Scoring (16 total points possible):

 

Reduces CO2 (up to 5 points)

+5 1,000 or more annual tons of CO2 reduced

+4 500-999 annual tons of CO2 reduced

+3 250-499 annual tons of CO2 reduced

+2 100-249 annual tons of CO2 reduced

+1 Less than 100 annual tons of CO2 reduced

  0  No impact

-1  Less than 100 annual tons of CO2 increased

-2  100-249 annual tons of CO2 increased

-3  250-499 annual tons of CO2 increased

-4  500-999 annual tons of CO2 increased

-5  1,000 or more annual tons of CO2 increased

 

Reduces other transportation-related emissions (VOC, NOx, CO) (up to 5 points)

+5 2,000 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

+4 1,000-1999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

+3 500-999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

+2 250-499 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

+1 Less than 250 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

  0  No impact

-1  Less than 250 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

-2  250-499 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

-3  500-999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

-4  1,000-1999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

-5  2,000 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

 

Addresses environmental impacts (up to 4 points)

+1 Addresses water quality

+1 Addresses cultural resources/open space

+1 Addresses wetlands/resource areas

+1 Addresses wildlife preservation/protected habitats

  0 Does not meet or address criteria

 

Project is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA)-certified “Green Community” (up to 2 points)

+2 Project is located in a “Green Community”

Transportation Equity

Transportation Equity Evaluation Scoring (12 total points possible):

 

Serves Title VI/non-discrimination populations (up to 12 points)

+2 Serves minority (high concentration) population

+1 Serves minority (low concentration) population

+2 Serves low-income (high concentration) population

+1 Serves low-income (low concentration) population

+2 Serves limited-English proficiency (high concentration) population

+1 Serves limited-English proficiency (low concentration) population

+2 Serves elderly (high concentration) population

+1 Serves elderly (low concentration) population

+2 Serves zero vehicle households (high concentration) population

+1 Serves zero vehicle households (low concentration) population

+2 Serves persons with disabilities (high concentration) population

+1 Serves persons with disabilities (low concentration) population

 

+0   Does not serve Title VI or non-discrimination populations

-10  Creates a burden for Title VI/non -discrimination populations

 

Economic Vitality

Economic Vitality Evaluation Scoring (18 total points possible):

 

Serves targeted development site (up to 6 points)

+2 Provides new transit access to or within site

+1 Improves transit access to or within site

+1 Provides for bicycle access to or within site

+1 Provides for pedestrian access to or within site

+1 Provides for improved road access to or within site

+0 Does not provide any of the above measures

 

Provides for development consistent with the compact growth strategies of MetroFuture (up to 5 points)

+2 Mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development

+1 Partly serves an existing area of concentrated development

+1 Supports local zoning or other regulations that are supportive of smart growth development

+2 Complements other local financial or regulatory support that fosters economic revitalization in a manner consistent with smart growth development principles 

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

 

Provides multimodal access to an activity center (up to 4 points)

+1 Provides transit access (within a quarter mile) to an activity center

+1 Provides truck access to an activity center

+1 Provides bicycle access to an activity center

+1 Provides pedestrian access to an activity center

  0  Does not provide multimodal access

 

Leverages other investments (non-TIP funding) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree (>30% of the project cost)

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree (10-30% of the project cost)

+1 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree (<10% of the project cost)

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Economic Vitality Definitions

Targeted Development Areas

A targeted development area is located within one-half mile of the project area. Eligible targeted development areas include 43D, 43E, and 40R sites, Regionally Significant Priority Development Areas, Growth District Initiatives, and MBTA transit station areas.

      Municipality Provides Financial or Regulatory Support for Targeted Development

The proposed project will improve access to or within a commercial district served by a Main Street organization, local business association, Business Improvement District, or comparable, geographically targeted organization (i.e., not a city/town-wide chamber of commerce).

Local Efforts to improve Design and Access:

Appendix C

Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation

Background

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008 (GWSA) requires statewide reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 25 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. As part of the GWSA, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs developed the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan (CECP), which outlines programs to attain the 25 percent reduction by 2020—including a 7.6 percent reduction to be attributed to the transportation sector.

The Commonwealth’s 13 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are integrally involved in helping to achieve greenhouse gas reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs work closely with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and other involved agencies to develop common transportation goals, policies, and projects that would help to reduce GHG emission levels statewide, and meet the specific requirements of the GWSA regulation – Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (310 CMR 60.05). The purpose of this regulation is to assist the Commonwealth in achieving its adopted GHG emission-reduction goals by requiring the following:

  • MassDOT to demonstrate that its GHG reduction commitments and targets are being achieved
  • Each MPO to evaluate and track the GHG emissions and impacts of both its LRTP and TIP
  • Each MPO, in consultation with MassDOT, to develop and utilize procedures to prioritize and select projects in its LRTP and TIP based on factors that include GHG emissions and impacts

The Commonwealth’s MPOs are meeting the requirements of this regulation through the transportation goals and policies contained in their 2016 LRTPs, the major projects planned in the LRTPs, and the mix of new transportation projects that are programmed and implemented through the TIP.

The GHG tracking and evaluation processes enable the MPOs and MassDOT to identify the anticipated GHG impacts of the planned and programmed projects, and to use GHG impacts as criteria to prioritize transportation projects. This approach is consistent with the GHG reduction policies that promote healthy transportation modes through prioritizing and programming an appropriate balance of roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian investments, as well as policies that support smart-growth development patterns by creating a balanced multi-modal transportation system.

Regional Tracking and Evaluation in Long-Range Transportation Plans

MassDOT coordinated with MPOs and regional planning agencies to implement GHG tracking and evaluation during the development of LRTPs, which were adopted in September 2011. This collaboration continued for the MPOs’ 2016 LRTPs and amendments, federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2016–19 TIPs, FFYs 2017–21 TIPs, and FFYs 2018–22 TIPs.  Working together, MassDOT and the MPOs have attained the following milestones:

  • As a supplement to the 2016 LRTPs and Amendment One to the Boston Region MPO’s LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040, the MPOs have completed modeling and developed long-range statewide projections for GHG emissions resulting from the transportation sector. Using the Boston Region MPO’s travel demand model and the statewide travel demand model, the MPOs have projected GHG emissions for 2018, 2019, and 2020 No-Build (base) and Build (action) conditions, and for 2040 No-Build (base) and Build (action) conditions.
  • All of the MPOs have discussed climate change, addressed GHG emissions-reduction projections in their LRTPs, and prepared statements affirming their support for reducing GHG emissions as a regional goal.

Tracking and Evaluation in The Transportation Improvement Program

In addition to monitoring the GHG impacts of projects in the LRTP that will add capacity to the transportation system, it also is important to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of all transportation projects that are programmed in the TIP. The TIP includes both the larger, capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and smaller projects, which are not included in the LRTP but that may affect GHG emissions. The principal objective of this tracking is to enable the MPOs to evaluate the expected GHG impacts of different projects and to use this information as criteria to prioritize and program projects in future TIPs.

In order to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of TIP projects, MassDOT and the MPOs have developed approaches for identifying anticipated GHG emission impacts of different types of projects. Since carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest component of GHG emissions overall and is the focus of regulation 310 CMR 60.05, CO2 has been used to measure the GHG impacts of transportation projects in the TIP and LRTP. All TIP projects have been sorted into two categories for analysis: 1) projects with quantified CO2 impacts, and 2) projects with assumed CO2 impacts. Projects with quantified impacts consist of capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and projects from the TIP that underwent a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program spreadsheet analysis. Projects with assumed impacts are those that would be expected to produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions, and those that would be assumed to have no CO2 impact.

Projects with Quantified Impacts

Travel Demand Model

Projects with quantified impacts include capacity-adding projects in the LRTP that were analyzed using the Boston Region MPO’s travel demand model set. No independent TIP calculations were done for these projects.

Off-Model Methods

MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning provided spreadsheets that are used to determine projects’ eligibility for funding through the CMAQ Program. Typically, the MPO staff use data from projects’ functional design reports, which are submitted at the 25-percent design phase, to conduct these calculations. These spreadsheets were used for calculating estimated projections of CO2 for each project to comply with the GWSA regulations. These estimates are shown in Tables C-1 and C-2. A note of “to be determined” is shown for those projects for which a functional design report was not yet available.

As part of this TIP, analyses were done for the types of projects described below. A summary of the steps in the analyses are provided.

Traffic Operational Improvement

An intersection reconstruction or signalization project that typically reduces delays and, therefore, idling

  • Step 1: Calculate the AM-peak-hour total intersection delay (seconds)
  • Step 2: Calculate the PM-peak-hour total intersection delay (seconds)
  • Step 3: Select the peak hour with the longer intersection delay
  • Step 4: Calculate the selected peak-hour total intersection delay with improvements
  • Step 5: Calculate the vehicle delay in hours per day (assumes peak-hour delay is 10 percent of daily delay)
  • Step 6: Input the emission factors for arterial idling speed from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)
  • Step 7: Calculate the net emissions change in kilograms per day
  • Step 8: Calculate the net emissions change in kilograms per year (seasonally adjusted)
  • Step 9: Calculate the cost-effectiveness (first year cost per kilogram of emissions reduced)

Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure

A shared-use path that would enable more walking and biking trips and reduce automobile trips

  • Step 1: Calculate the estimated number of one-way trips based on the percentage of workers residing in the communities served by the facility and the communities’ bicycle and pedestrian commuter mode share
  • Step 2: Calculate the reduction in vehicle-miles traveled per day and per year (assumes each trip is the length of the facility and that the facility operates 200 days per year)
  • Step 3: Input the MOVES emission factors for the average commuter travel speed (assumes 35 miles per hour)
  • Step 4: Calculate the net emissions change in kilograms per year (seasonally adjusted)
  • Step 5: Calculate the cost-effectiveness (first year cost per kilogram of emissions reduced)

Bus Replacement

A program that replaces old buses with new buses that reduce emissions or run on cleaner fuel

  • Step 1: Input the MOVES emission factors for the average bus travel speed (assumes 18 miles per hour) for both the old model year bus and the new model year bus
  • Step 2: Calculate the fleet vehicle miles per day based on the vehicle revenue-miles and operating days per year
  • Step 3: Calculate the net emissions change in kilograms per year (seasonally adjusted)
  • Step 4: Calculate the cost-effectiveness (first year cost per kilogram of emissions reduced)

Calculations may be performed on the following project types; however, there are no projects of these types in this TIP.

New and Additional Transit Service

A new bus or shuttle service that reduces automobile trips

Park-and-Ride Lot

A facility that reduces automobile trips by encouraging high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) travel through carpooling or transit

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

A new vehicle procurement that replaces traditional gas or diesel vehicles with alternative fuel or advanced technology vehicles

Anti-Idling Strategies

Anti-idling strategies include incorporating anti-idling technology into fleets and using light-emitting diode (LED) lights on trucks for the purpose of illuminating worksites

Bike Share Projects

Bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a short-term basis allowing each bicycle to serve several users per day

Induced Travel

Considers new or reduced automobile trips associated with a roadway capacity change

Speed Reduction Projects

Considers emission reductions associated with a reduction in roadway speeds of not less than 55 miles per hour

Transit Signal Priority Projects

Technology at a signalized intersection or along a corridor that impacts bus travel times

Truck Stop Electrification

Provides truck drivers the necessary services, such as heating, air conditioning, or appliances, without requiring them to idle their engine

Projects with Assumed Impacts

Qualitative Decrease or Increase in CO2 Emissions

Projects with assumed CO2 impacts are those that could produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions, but the change in emissions cannot be calculated with any precision. Examples include a bicycle rack installation, Safe Routes to School project, or transit marketing or customer service improvement. These projects are categorized as producing an assumed nominal increase or decrease.

No CO2 Impact

Projects that do not change the capacity or use of a facility—for example, a resurfacing project that restores a roadway to its previous condition, or a bridge rehabilitation or replacement that restores the bridge to its previous condition—are assumed to have no CO2 impact.

More details on these projects, including a description of each project’s anticipated CO2 impacts, are discussed in Chapter 3. The following tables display the GHG impact analyses of projects funded in the Highway Program (Table C-1) and Transit Program (Table C-2). Table C-3 summarizes the GHG impact analyses of highway projects completed in FFY 2017. Table C-4 summarizes the GHG impact analyses of transit projects completed in FFY 2017. A project is considered completed when the construction contract has been awarded or the transit vehicles have been purchased.


TABLE C-1:

Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway Project Tracking

MassDOT Project ID

MassDOT Project Description

GHG Analysis  Type

GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr)

GHG Impact Description

608229

Acton - Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner

Quantified

111,958

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

606223

Acton-Concord - Bruce Freeman Rail Construction (Phase II-B)

Quantified

10,315

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

607748

Acton - Intersection and Signal Improvements on SR 2 and
SR 111 (Massachusetts Ave) at Piper Rd and Taylor Rd

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

606381

Arlington- Belmont - Highway Lighting Repair and Maintenance on Route 2

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

604123

Ashland - Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond St) from Framingham Town Line to Holliston Town Line

Quantified

148,097

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

607738

Bedford - Minuteman Bikeway Extension from Loomis St to the Concord Town Line

Quantified

21,098

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

608347

Beverly- Intersection Improvements at 3 Locations: Cabot St (Route 1A/97) at Dodge St (Route 1A), County Way, Longmeadow Rd and Scott St, McKay St at Balch St and Veterans Memorial Bridge (Route 1A) at Rantoul, Cabot, Water, and Front Sts

Quantified

582,422

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement

608614

Boston - Superstructure Replacement, B-16-179, Austin St over I-93 Ramps, MBTA Commuter Rail and Orange Line

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

604173

Boston- Bridge Rehabilitation, B-16-016, North Washington St over the Boston Inner Harbor

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

607888

Boston-Brookline - Multi-Use Path Construction on New Fenway

Quantified

54,724

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

608755

Boston- Intersection Improvements at Morton St and
Harvard St

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

606453

Boston- Improvements on Boylston St, from Intersection of Brookline Ave and Park Dr to Ipswich St

Quantified

1,920,790

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

607759

Boston- Intersection and Signal Improvements at the VFW Pkwy and Spring St

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

606728

Boston- Superstructure Repairs on B-16-365, Bowker Overpass over Storrow Dr (EB)

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608234

Boston-Randolph - Bridge Preservation of 3 Bridges: B-16-165, R-01-005 and R-01-007

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

605789

Boston- Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Blvd

Quantified

2,872,641

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

606226

Boston- Reconstruction of Rutherford Ave, from City Square to Sullivan Square

Quantified

blank

LRTP project included in the statewide model

606134

Boston- Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Ave and
Warren St

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608009

Boxborough- Bridge Replacement, B-18-002, Route 111 over I-495

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608651

Braintree - Adaptive Signal Controls on Route 37 (Granite St)

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608608

Braintree - Highway Lighting Improvements at I-93/Route 3 Interchange

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

605110

Brookline- Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 and Village Square (Gateway East)

Quantified

67,056

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

606316

Brookline- Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation, B-27-016, over MBTA off Carlton St

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608482

Cambridge-Somerville - Resurfacing and Related Work on
Route 28

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608484

Canton-Milton - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 138

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608599

Canton-Foxborough-Norwood-Walpole - Stormwater Improvements along Route 1, Route 1A, and Interstate 95

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608611

Canton-Milton-Randolph - Replacement and Rehabilitation of the Highway Lighting System at the Route 24/Route 1/I-93 Interchange

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608078

Chelsea- Reconstruction on Broadway (Route 107) from City Hall to Revere City Line

Quantified

93,278

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

608206

Chelsea to Danvers - Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on a Section of US Route 1

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

BN1800

Community Transportation Program

Quantified

blank

LRTP project included in the statewide model

608495

Concord-Lexington-Lincoln - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 2A

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608478

Concord - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 2

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608818

Danvers - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 114

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

607901

Dedham - Pedestrian Improvements along Elm St and
Rustcraft Rd Corridors

Quantified

12,722

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

608587

Dedham - Reconstruction and Related Work on Bridge St
(Route 109) and Ames St

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608596

Essex - Bridge Preservation, E-11-001, Route 133/Main St over Essex River

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

607652

Everett - Reconstruction of Ferry St, South Ferry St and a Portion of Elm St

Quantified

435,976

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

608210

Foxborough-Plainville-Wrentham-Franklin - Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on I-495

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608480

Foxborough-Walpole - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

607732

Framingham-Natick - Cochituate Rail Trail Construction
including Pedestrian Bridge, N-03-014, over Route 9 and
F-07-033=N-03-029 over Route 30

Quantified

62,441

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

608228

Framingham - Reconstruction of Union Ave, from Proctor St to Main St

Quantified

-217,978

Quantified Increase in Emissions

608498

Hingham-Weymouth-Braintree - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 53

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

600518

Hingham - Intersection Improvements at Derby St, Whiting St, and Gardner St

Quantified

-145,683

Quantified Increase in Emissions

606501

Holbrook - Reconstruction of Union Street (Route 139), from Linfield St to Centre St and Water St

Quantified

4,097

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

607428

Hopedale-Milford - Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Main St), from Water St west to approximately 120 feet west of the Milford/Hopedale town line and the intersection of Route 140

Quantified

201,148

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

606043

Hopkinton - Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135

Quantified

1,298,625

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

606632

Hopkinton-Westborough - Bridge Replacement,
H-23-006=W-24-016, Fruit St over CSX and Sudbury River

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

607977

Hopkinton-Westborough - Reconstruction of I-90/I-495 Interchange

Quantified

blank

LRTP project included in the statewide model

601607

Hull - Reconstruction of Atlantic Avenue and Related Work

Quantified

6,586

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

608379

Lexington-Belmont-Arlington-Cambridge - Pavement Preservation on Route 2

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

602077

Lynn - Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield St), from Great Woods Rd to Wyoma Square

Quantified

12,761

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

604952

Lynn-Saugus - Bridge Replacement, L-18-016=S-05-008,
Route 107 over the Saugus River (AKA - Belden G. Bly Bridge)

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608146

Marblehead - Intersection Improvements at Pleasant St and Village, Vine and Cross St

Quantified

531

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement

608566

Marlborough - Improvements at Route 20 (East Main St) at
Curtis Ave

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608467

Marlborough-Sudbury - Resurfacing and Related Work on
Route 20

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

604655

Marshfield - Bridge Replacement, M-07-007, Beach St over the Cut River

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608069

Marshfield-Pembroke-Norwell-Hanover-Rockland-Hingham - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 3

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608637

Maynard - Bridge Replacement, M-10-006, Florida Rd over Assabet River

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608835

Medford - Improvements at Brook Elementary School

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608522

Middleton - Bridge Replacement- M-20-003, RT 62/Maple St over Ipswich River

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

607342

Milton - Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 28 (Randolph Ave) and Chickatawbut Rd

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

607763

Milton - Intersection and Signal Improvements at 2 Locations:
SR 138 (Blue Hill Ave) at Atherton St and Bradlee Rd and SR 138 (Blue Hill Ave) at Milton St and Dollar Ln

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

607330

Milton - Deck Reconstruction Over SE Expressway
(East Milton Square)

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

605034

Natick - Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main St), from
North Ave to the Wayland Town Line

Quantified

189,410

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

606635

Needham-Newton - Reconstruction of Highland Ave, Needham St and Charles River Bridge, N-04-002, from Webster St (Needham) to Route 9 (Newton)

Quantified

1,186,210

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

603711

Needham-Wellesley - Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on
I-95/Route 128: N-04-020, N-04-021, N-04-022, N-04-026,
N-04-027, N-04-037 and W-13-023 (Add-a-Lane- Contract V)

Quantified

blank

LRTP project included in the statewide model

607915

Newton-Wellesley-Weston - Bridge Maintenance of N-12-063,
N-12-054, N-12-055 and N-12-056 on I-95/Route 128

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608052

Norwood - Intersection and Signal Improvements at US 1 (Providence Highway) and Morse St

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

605857

Norwood - Intersection Improvements at Route 1 and
University Ave/Everett St

Quantified

1,092,131

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement

606130

Norwood - Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Upland Rd

Quantified

72,964

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement

608468

Peabody-Danvers - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608567

Peabody - Improvements at Route 114 at Sylvan St, Cross St, Northshore Mall, Loris Rd, Route 128 Interchange

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608208

Quincy-Milton-Boston - Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on I-93

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608569

Quincy- Intersection Improvements at Route 3A (Southern Artery) and Broad St

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608205

Reading to Lynnfield - Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on a Section of I-95 (SR 128)

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608219

Reading-Wakefield - Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on I-95

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608743

Salem - Improvements at Bates Elementary School

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608521

Salem - Structural Steel Repairs, Bridge No. S-01-018

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608352

Salem - Canal St Rail Trail Construction (Phase 2)

Quantified

6,651

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

608817

Salem-Lynn - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 107

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608008

Saugus - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608079

Sharon - Bridge Replacement, S-09-003 (40N), Maskwonicut St over Amtrak/MBTA

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

BN1570

Somerville-Medford - Green Line Extension Project - Extension to College Ave with the Union Square Spur

Quantified

blank

LRTP project included in the statewide model

608562

Somerville - Signal and Intersection Improvement on I-93 at
Mystic Ave and McGrath Highway

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

604989

Southborough - Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30), from Sears Rd to Park St

Quantified

231,813

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

608829

Stoughton - Improvements at West Elementary School

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

605342

Stow - Bridge Replacement, S-29-001, (ST 62) Gleasondale Rd over the Assabet River

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608255

Stow - Bridge Replacement, S-29-011, Box Mill Rd over Elizabeth Brook

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608164

Sudbury - Bike Path Construction (Bruce Freeman Rail Trail)

Quantified

49,903

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

607761

Swampscott - Intersection and Signal Improvements at SR 1A (Paradise Road) at Swampscott Mall

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608493

Topsfield - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

607329

Wakefield-Lynnfield - Rail Trail Extension, from the Galvin Middle School to Lynnfield/Peabody Town Line

Quantified

158,032

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

602261

Walpole - Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main St), from the Norwood Town Line to Route 27, includes W-03-024 over the Neponset River

Quantified

230,473

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

607533

Waltham - Bridge Replacement, W-04-006, Woerd Ave over Charles River

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

607777

Watertown - Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn St (Route 16)

Quantified

536,769

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

608564

Watertown - Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and
Galen St

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608823

Wellesley-Newton-Weston - Pavement Resurfacing and Related Work on I-95

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608528

Weston-Waltham - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 20

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

601630

Weymouth-Abington - Reconstruction and Widening on Route 18 (Main St) from Highland Place to Route 139 (4.0 Miles) includes replacing W-32-013, Route 18 over the Old Colony Railroad (MBTA)

Quantified

blank

LRTP project included in the statewide model

608703

Wilmington - Bridge Replacement W-38-029 (2KV) Route 129 Lowell St Over I-93

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

607327

Wilmington - Bridge Replacement W-38-002 (2KV) Route 38 Main St Over the B&M Railroad

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

608791

Winchester - Improvements at Vinson-Owen Elementary School

Qualitative

blank

Qualitative Decrease in Emissions

608214

Winchester - Stormwater Improvements along Route 3

Qualitative

blank

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

604996

Woburn - Bridge Replacement, W-43-017, New Boston St over MBTA

Quantified

blank

LRTP project included in the statewide model

 

TABLE C-2

Greenhouse Gas Regional Transit Project Tracking

Regional Transit Authority

Project Description

GHG Analysis  Type

GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr)

GHG Impact Description

CATA

Acquire - Miscellaneous Support Equipment

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

CATA

Acquire - Shop Equipment/Software Maintenance

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

CATA

Buy Replacement Trolley Buses (2)

Quantified

530

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

CATA

Construct - Bus Shelter-CATA HUB/COA

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

CATA

Preventative Maintenance

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

CATA

Rehab - Shelters Railroad, Park and Ride, Emerson Ave

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

CATA

Rehab/Renovate - Bus Passenger Shelters

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Bridge and Tunnel Program

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Green Line Extension Project - Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur

Quantified

0

LRTP project included in the statewide model

MBTA

Stations and Facilities

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Bus Overhaul

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Bus Program

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Bus Procurement (60 Hybrid Buses)

Quantified

2,398,879

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

MBTA

Elevator Program

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Revenue Vehicle Program

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Positive Train Control

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Systems Upgrade

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MBTA

Signal Program

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MWRTA

Acquisition of Bus Support Equipment/Facilities

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MWRTA

Construct Miscellaneous Electric/Power Equipment

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MWRTA

Mobility Management

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MWRTA

Non-Fixed Route ADA Paratransit Services

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

MWRTA

Terminal, Intermodal (Transit)

Qualitative

0

No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions

 

 

TABLE C-3:

Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway "Completed" Project Tracking

MassDOT Project ID

MassDOT Project Description

GHG Analysis  Type

GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr)

GHG Impact Description

FFY of Contract Award

606284

Boston- Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue, from Amory Street to Alcorn Street

Quantified

162,389

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

2015

605657

Medway- Reconstruction on Route 109, from Holliston Street to 100 Feet West of Highland Street

Quantified

707,616

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

2015

605146

Salem- Reconstruction on Canal Street, from Washington Street and Mill Street to Loring Avenue and Jefferson Avenue

Quantified

66,226

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

2015

604531

Acton- Assabet River Rail Trail

Quantified

61,690

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

2015

602000

Weston- Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 30 (South Ave) and Wellesley Street

Quantified

214,099

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement

2015

607209

Somerville- Cambridge- Reconstruction of Beacon Street, from Oxford Street to Cambridge City Line

Quantified

684,057

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

2015

601579

Wayland- Signal and Intersection Improvements at Route 27 (Main Street) and Route 30 (Commonwealth Road

Quantified

205,105

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement

2016

29492

Bedford-Billerica - Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Dr north to Manning Rd, includes reconstruction of B-04-006 (Phase III)

Quantified

LRTP

LRTP project included in the statewide model

2017

604761

Boston - Multi-Use Trail Construction (South Bay Harbor), from Ruggles Station to Fort Point Channel

Quantified

767,491

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

2017

607309

Hingham – Reconstruction and related work on Derby St, from Pond Park Rd to Cushing St

Quantified

351.994

Quantified Decrease in Emissions

2017

604810

Marlborough - Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple St)

Quantified

589,680

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

2017

602165

Stoneham - Signal and Intersection Improvements at Route 28/North St

Quantified

139,709

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement

2017

604935

Woburn - Reconstruction of Montvale Ave, from I-93 Interchange to Central St (approximately 1,850 feet)

Quantified

98,885

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project

2017

 

 

 

TABLE C-4:

GREENHOUSE GAS REGIONAL TRANSIT "COMPLETED" PROJECT TRACKING

Regional Transit Authority

Project Description

GHG Analysis  Type

GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr)

GHG Impact Description

FFY of Contract Award

CATA

Bus Replacement - 30-Foot Bus (2)

Quantified

786

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2015

CATA

Bus Replacement - Less than 30-Foot Bus (3)

Quantified

18,666

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2015

MBTA

Revenue Vehicle Program - Bus Replacement (60)

Quantified

2,398,879

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2015

MWRTA

Van Replacement (2)

Quantified

4,457

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2015

MWRTA

Mini-Van Replacement (8)

Quantified

5,211

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2015

MWRTA

Bus Replacement - Less than 30-Foot Bus (2)

Quantified

8,640

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2015

CATA

Bus Replacement - 30-Foot Bus (4)

Quantified

1,660

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2016

CATA

Bus Replacement - Less than 30-Foot Bus (3)

Quantified

10,151

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2016

MBTA

Revenue Vehicle Program - Bus Replacement (369)

Quantified

1,264,520

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2016

MWRTA

Bus Replacement - Less than 30-Foot Bus (5)

Quantified

20,107

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2016

CATA

Buy Replacement 30-Foot Buses (3)

Quantified

1,278

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2017

MWRTA

Non-Fixed Route ADA Paratransit Vehicles (4)

Quantified

6,653

Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement

2017

 

Appendix D

Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2018–22 TIP

Overview of Contents

summary of Written Comments received during TIP development

MPO staff’s responses to comments are preceded by an asterisk.

Most frequent comments (at least two comments were received on each subject below):

Other comments:

TABLE D-1:

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

PROJECT(S) /ISSUE(S) SUPPORT OPPOSE REQUEST
COMMENTER(S) COMMENT (SUMMARIZED) Page
in PDF
Draft Response
Regional Transportation Advisory Council          
TIP Outreach Support Organization: RTAC Thanks the MPO staff for its attention to reframing and improving communication, information, and material related to the TIP. States this information has been helpful in explaining the TIP processes to stakeholders and the public.
1 Thank you for your comment.
Project Scoring & Evaluation Request Organization: RTAC Expresses appreciation for the MPO's attention to newly established priorities and the "binning" approach by which projects are compared to other projects of the same type in the TIP scoring.

Requests the MPO begin to consider criteria related to the sustainability of projects in the Community Transportation category. Notes a study has been identified to do this in the FFY 2018 UPWP.

States there are several projects on the TIP programming scenario list that were given initial approval as much as 15 or 20 years ago. Notes there have been many examples of changes in both regional and local priorities since that time. Requests that the MPO reconfirm that those projects are still priorities with the project sponsors, and to re-score the projects on a regular basis.

1 Thank you for your comment.

The Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility investment program will be defined by the MPO and MPO staff during FFY 2018.

MPO Staff will work with MassDOT to ensure that projects listed in the Universe of Projects are active and remain priorities of the municipal project proponents. If considered necessary, projects will be reevaluated and rescored during TIP development.
Project Programming & Funding Request Organization: RTAC Expresses appreciation of the effort MPO staff has made in shuffling projects to keep them on their original schedule and ensure they are "shovel-ready."

Encourages the MPO to consider any opportunities to fund programmed projects from sources other than the MPO, should such opportunities arise, so that funds can be reallocated to other projects to reduce the backlog on the MPO list.
1-2 Thank you for your comment.

During development of the TIP and discussions with MassDOT, all options for funding projects will be considered.
Cost Estimates Support Organization: RTAC States the Advisory Council looks forward to continuing discussion with the MPO and MassDOT on cost estimation, processes to budget realistically, and avoidance of major cost increases.
2 Thank you for your comment.
Subregional Groups          
Project Selection in the MAGIC Region Support + Request Organization: MAGIC Supports inclusion of three projects programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. MAGIC's top priorities are as follows (listed in order of priority):

1) Minuteman Bikeway Extension (Bedford)
2) Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D
3) Intersection Improvements at Massachusetts Avenue (Route 111) and Main Street (Route 27) (Kelley's Corner)

Requests consideration of programming the Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Landham Road project.
3-4 As noted, the three projects supported by the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP.


When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and consider  programming the unfunded priority projects in the  Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination's subregion that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. In addition, as those unfunded projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate and add them to the list of evaluated projects for the MPO's consideration.
Project Selection in the South Shore Region Support + Request Organization: SSC Supports inclusion of five projects in the South Shore region in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. SSC's top priorities are as follows (listed in order of priority):

1) Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street from Pond Park Road to Cushing Street
2) Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street
3) Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway and Tara Drive
4) Reconstruction and Widening on Route 18 (Main Street)
5) Reconstruction of Atlantic Avenue and Related Work from Nantasket Avenue to Cohasset Town Line

Requests consideration of two projects not currently programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP:

1) Signal Installation at Route 3 (northbound and southbound) Ramps and Route 3A (Tremont Street)
2) Reconstruction of Union Street (Route 139), from Linfield Street to Center Street/Water Street
5-6 As noted, the four projects supported by the South Shore Coalition are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP.


When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and consider  programming the unfunded priority projects in the South Shore Coalitions's subregion that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. In addition, as those unfunded projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate and add them to the list of evaluated projects for the MPO's consideration.
Project Selection in the TRIC Region Support + Request Organization: TRIC Supports the following four projects programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP, and requests scheduling them in the earliest possible TIP element. TRIC's top priorities are as follows (listed in order of priority):

1) Reconstruction of Route 1A (Walpole)
2) Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Upload Rd./Washington St. and Prospect St./Fulton St. (Norwood)
3) Intersection Improvements at Route 1 and University Ave./Everett St. (Norwood)
4) Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street, and the Charles River Bridge (Needham & Newton)

TRIC's overall top priority is the I-93 / I-95 Canton Interchange Project. While they are aware of fiscal constraints, they are hopeful that the final phase of the Interchange Project will begin before the Dedham Corridor phase is completed.
7-8 As noted, the four projects supported by the Three Rivers Interlocal Council are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP.


When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and consider  programming the unfunded priority projects in the Three Rivers Interlocal Council's subregion that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. In addition, as those unfunded projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate and add them to the list of evaluated projects for the MPO's consideration.
Regionally-Focused Organizations          
Project Selection Support + Request Organization: A Better City Supports inclusion of ten projects in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP that A Better City and its members identify as priorities.
 
Requests consideration of Improvements Along Commonwealth Avenue (Boston) and the McGrath Boulevard Project (Somerville), if not in the current draft TIP, then in future amendments and future TIPs.
9-10 As noted, the ten projects supported by A Better City are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The Commonwealth Avenue project is considered a Major Infrastructure project because the construction cost is estimated to be more than $20 million. Therefore, before this project can be included in the TIP, the MPO board needs to include it in the Boston Region MPO's Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Deliberations about programming this project can take place during the development of the next LRTP, which will begin in FFY 2018. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the MPO's current LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. Assuming this project maintains it place in the next LRTP, the MPO board can consider programming it in the TIP in coming years.  The investment goals established by the MPO are factors that dictate the programming of projects in the TIP. No Major Infrastructure projects were added to the TIP during this year's TIP development cycle due to the fact that currently, about 60 percent of the MPO's TIP Target Program funding is dedicated to projects classified as Major Infrastructure, while the MPO's goal for spending in this category is 44 percent. The Major Infrastructure commitments currently programmed in the TIP include the Rutherford Avenue project (# 606226) and the Green Line Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur (# 1570). Therefore, when recommending new projects for programming, MPO staff focused on funding bicycle and pedestrian projects, Complete Streets projects, and intersection improvement projects. The Commonwealth Avenue and McGrath Boulevard projects, which are both Major Infrastructure projects, will be considered for TIP funding by the MPO board in the future.
Replacement of Allston I-90 Elevated Viaduct, including Interchange Reconstruction Beacon Park Yard Layover and West Station
 (Boston)
Request Organization: A Better City Requests immediate evaluation of the Replacement of Allston I-90 Elevated Viaduct. States that this critical project should move forward as soon as funding becomes available, and construction is scheduled to begin before FFY 2022. 10 The project to replace the Interstate 90 Allston Viaduct  is categorized as a Major Infrastructure project. As such, the project must be evaluated and recommended in the MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) before it can be programmed in the TIP to recieve federal funds. We expect the MPO board will consider programming the project during the next update to the LRTP, which will be endorsed in 2019.
Universe of Projects Request Organization: A Better City Requests that a number of bus rapid transit (BRT) projects and routes being considered in the urban core be added to the Universe of Projects. The BRT projects should be considered for inclusion in the TIP in future amendments as more information is developed.
 
Requests that the South Station Expansion Project be added to the Universe of Projects for work that will begin during this TIP cycle, if funding is available.
10 Bus rapid transit projects and the expansion of MBTA stations are planned and prioritized for funding by MassDOT and the MBTA. The selection process for those transit projects is different than for the projects that typically make up the TIP's Universe of Projects. The latter tend to consist of roadway improvement projects because the funding programs that the MPO has discretion over are administered by the Federal Highway Administration. The MBTA and other transit authorities in the state receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration.  The prioritization of their capital improvements primarily occurs via the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) process, now underway.

For more information on MassDOT's transit planning efforts, please refer to Focus40 (www.mbtafocus40.com/) and the Capital Investment Plan (www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx). Both of these planning efforts will provide opportunities for public input. 
Multiple Support Organization: CrossTown Connect TMA Supports the inclusion of 11 projects that help improve the transportation infrastructure in, around, and accessing the region served by CrossTown Connect. Expresses particular appreciation for the inclusion of the Minuteman Bikeway Extension (Bedford), Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D (Sudbury), and Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner (Acton). 11-12 As noted, the eleven projects supported by CrossTown Connect TMA are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. See Chapter 3 of the TIP.
Modernization of the MBTA Request Organization: CrossTown Connect TMA Requests investment toward modernizing and increasing reliability of the MBTA, particularly the Red Line. States that a number of shuttles use Alewife Station as a beginning and end point, and the station is a gateway to the region. The MBTA needs to run efficiently in order for the TMA's services to run efficiently and for the region to benefit as much as possible.
13 The MBTA's capital investments and expansion projects are prioritized through planning processes led by the MassDOT and the MBTA, including Focus40 (the long-term investment strategy); the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (the five-year financial plan for MassDOT and the MBTA); and the MBTA's Stations and Facilities Plan. (For more information visit www.mbtafocus40.com/ and www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx.)

These planning efforts also factor into the development of the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan, which will be underway in the coming year. MBTA projects currently planned for funding in FFYs 2018-22 are included in the following tables on the MPO's website: FFYs 2018-22 TIP tables at www.bostonmpo.org/data/pdf/plans/tip/FFYs_2018_2022_Draft_TIP_Tables_042417.pdf; and MBTA Transit Program shown by federal fiscal year at www.bostonmpo.org/data/pdf/plans/tip/FFYs_2018_2022_TIP_Draft_MBTA_Program_by_FY.pdf.

 Please remain involved in these efforts in order to make your priorities known.
Project Selection Support Organization: MASCO Supports inclusion of six projects in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP that will improve multimodal access to the Longwood Medical Area (LMA).

States that transit and roadway congestion constrain access to the LMA and contribute to 62% of area employees having commutes more than 40 minutes long.
14-15 The projects you cite are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP, in the following years:
 - 605110 in FFY 2018 (Section 1A)
 - 606316 in FFY 2019 (Section 1B)
 - 605789 in FFY 2019 (Section 1A)
 - 606453 in FFY 2020 (Section 1A)
 - 607888 in FFY 2019 (Section 2C)
 - 606728 in FFY 2022 (Section 2A)
Project Selection in the 495 / MetroWest Region Support + Request Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership Supports inclusion of 22 projects within the 495/MetroWest Region in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Expresses particular appreciation for the inclusion of the Reconstruction of I-90/I-495 Interchange, Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Milford), and MWRTA funding, all of which address 495/MetroWest Partnership-defined "transportation nightmares." Appreciates the inclusion of a variety of new projects that traverse several subregions.
 
Requests that the MPO consider 24 projects within the 495/MetroWest Region for TIP funding; nine of these projects have been designated as "transportation nightmares" by the 495/MetroWest Partnership. States that a lack of sound financial footing for transportation infrastructure results in major projects that would have significant regional impact remaining idle in the TIP Universe of Projects. Notes that projects such as Improvements at I-495 and Route 9 (Southborough, Westborough) and the Reconstruction of I-290/I-495 Interchange (Hudson, Marlborough) must be addressed to successfully confront congestion, safety, air quality, and sustainable development issues in the region.
16-20 As noted, the 22 projects supported by the MetroWest Partnership are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. See Chapter 3 of the TIP.

When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and consider  programming the MetroWest Partnership's unfunded priority projects that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. In addition, as those unfunded projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate and add them to the list of evaluated projects for the MPO's consideration.
Funding for 495/MetroWest Region Communities Request Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership Notes that several communities in the 495/MetroWest Region have projects in the TIP Universe but have not received TIP funding since 2008 or before. The communities include, but may not be limited to, Bellingham, Holliston, Medfield, Millis, and Wrentham. Several other communities have received no TIP funding for the time period between 2008 and 2022, and do not have projects ready for consideration. States that this demonstrates the challenge for municipalities when funding project designs as the designs may be outdated by the time the projects are considered for the TIP. The Partnership will recommend that policymakers consider state design funding in exchange for partial municipal funding of projects.
19 The MPO is examining the regional distribution of TIP funding and considering forming a subcommittee to examine the challenges faced by some municipalities that make it difficult for them to initiate and advance projects through the TIP process and win federal funding.

It is also important that municipalities (project proponents) take the initiative to understand and be involved in the TIP process and other transportation planning processes in the region.
State Representatives, State Officials, Municipal Officials, Residents, and Local Advocacy Organizations (Project Specific Comments)          
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phases 2B and 2D          
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
 (Phases 2B & 2D)
Support Legislative: Sen. Mike Barrett, Sen. Jamie Eldridge, Rep. Cory Atkins, Rep. Jennifer E. Benson Aspen, CO resident: Nathaniel B. Bates
Nashua, NH resident: Denise Marchionda
Organizations: CrossTown Connect TMA, 495/MetroWest Partnership, Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
Concord residents: Bruce Bowden, Nancy Kerr, Richard A. Wells, Don Detweiler, Erik Waters, William Lehr, Dean Sullender, Pat Goldstein, Suzanne Knight, Steve Sutter
Sudbury residents: Alexander Glover, Chris Menge, Bettina Westerberg, Jason Viehland, Clyde Newton, Maile Hulihan
Acton residents: Irwin Abrams, Jim Snyder-Grant, Nancy Savage, Anne H. Anderson, Martin Burke, Bethel Gilbert, Dot Keyworth
Framingham residents: Sandy Gotlib, Katherine Reiner, Ed Kross
Medford resident: John G. Sieber
Carlisle resident: Steven W. Hinton, Bob Macauley
Westford residents: David Martin, Chris Barrett
Chelmsford resident: Mary Reese
Weston resident: David Hutcheson
Belmont resident: John Dieckmann
Lowell resident: Szifra Birke
Supports the inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phases 2B and 2D) in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The completed project will connect communities along the trail to public transportation, recreation areas, local businesses, schools, and other amenities. Quality of life along the corridor will be enhanced, and increased tourism will benefit the local economy. The trail will encourage mode shift, reducing vehicle trips and reducing emissions, and provide a safe transportation option for cyclists and pedestrians. 11-12,
16-20,
21-60
Phases 2B and 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project are funded in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Phase 2B is programmed in the FFY 2019 element of the TIP, and listed under Section 2C/State Prioritized Expansion Projects. Phase 2D is programmed in the FFY 2022 element, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. See Chapter 3 of the TIP document.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
 (Phase 2B)
Support Acton residents: Barbara Dowds, Joe Holmes
Lawrence resident: J. Breen
Chelmsford resident: Michael Mark Ross
Westford resident: Emily Teller
Supports the inclusion of Phase 2B of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project will connect the existing trail to West Concord and allow cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross Route 2. Phase 2B will connect trail users to nearby communities, public transportation, and local businesses. The project will improve quality of life and is consistent with other efforts to mitigate climate change. 61-65 Phase 2B of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project is programmed in the FFY 2019 element of the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The funding amount is listed under Section 2C/State Prioritized Expansion Projects. For details, please see www.bostonmpo.org/data/pdf/plans/tip/FFYs_2018_2022_Draft_TIP_Tables_042417.pdf
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
 (Phase 2D)
Support Municipal: Melissa Murphy-Rodrigues, Sudbury Town Manager
Organization: MAGIC
Concord resident: Barbara Pike
Sudbury residents: Leonard Simon, James C. Richards, Dick Williamson
Groton resident: Thomas Knatt
Supports the inclusion of Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (BFRT) in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The completed trail will provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access to nearby schools, recreation and conservation areas, local businesses, and public transportation. Phase 2D is an important connection with Phase 2C, since Phase 2D would bring the trail out of a more rural area in Concord and through the town center of Sudbury.

On March 7, the Sudbury Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to request $330,000 in free cash to continue designing the BFRT to MassDOT's standards. The Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly in favor of approving that funding.
66-72 Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project is programmed in the FFY 2022 element of the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The funding amount is listed under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. For details, please see www.bostonmpo.org/data/pdf/plans/tip/FFYs_2018_2022_Draft_TIP_Tables_042417.pdf
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
(Phase 2B)
Request Acton resident: Terra Friedrichs Requests the use of field stone in the construction of the bridge over Route 2 rather than manufactured blocks, stating this will help retain "town character."

Requests information regarding who to contact about design of the bridge. MPO staff have assisted with this request.
73 Commenter has received information that the project proponent is responsible for design decisions.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
 (Phase 2D)
Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown States that Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail received one point in the TIP evaluation process, under the "improves truck movement" criterion, because the construction of the trail is expected to result in removing bicycle traffic from local roads.
 
Requests that the greenhouse gas reduction estimate for the project be reduced to reflect users who will not be removing cars from the road, as they already use bicycles. Adds that the improvement in truck movement should be quantifiable.
 
Alternately, if there is no discernable diversion of bicycle traffic from roadways, the point for "improves truck movement" should be removed.
74-75 The Town of Sudbury's Environmental Planner stated, during the evaluation of this project, that truck movements are affected by pedestrian and bicycle use of roadways, especially on the numerous narrow and winding roads of Sudbury, and that reducing non-vehicular traffic on the roadways will help with truck movements.

The MPO's project evaluation process attempts to score  projects based on the various benefits the projects are expected to provide. Some of the evaluation criteria are quantitative (such as measures of substandard pavement and hours of vehicle delay), whereas other criteria rely on professional judgement. In many instances, such as measuring truck movement, the reliance on professional judgement is necessary in part because of issues related to the availability and completeness of data. The evaluation criteria were developed to reflect the many diverse and interrelated aspects of the MPO's goals and objectives. The MPO may consider revisions of the evaluation criteria in future TIP development cycles.

During this year's evaluation process, MPO staff evaluated Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project’s potential affect on truck movements and considered the roadway network in Sudbury in relation to surrounding towns and major roadway corridors. The Sudbury Road/Concord Road corridor provides an important connection for vehicles travelling from the east or west along Route 2 to downtown Sudbury. This route allows trucks to avoid travelling through Maynard.

The MPO uses MassDOT’s TIP Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance to calculate the air quality benefits that would be produced by projects. This guidance is used for
• the evaluation of projects proposed for programming in the TIP;
• reporting for compliance with the Global Warming Solution Act; and
• determination of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality eligibility.
The evaluation for this project under the Clean Air and Clean Community goal category was done in accordance with this guidance.


    For the air quality analysis, MassDOT provides spreadsheets for each project type, including bicycle and pedestrian projects. Inputs into the spreadsheet include information on the facility length and service area, along with population and employment, are considered.
Another important factor is the bicycle and commuter mode share; Census and American Community Survey data were used to account for work-related trips. The mode share estimate may be a conservative assumption since it only takes into account commuters who travel to work and does not consider those who would use the facility for shopping and school trips.
The MPO uses bicycle facility data from the 2011 MassDOT Road Inventory and 2011 MassDOT Bicycle Accommodation Inventory, as well as the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Bicycle and Pedestrian Mapping Index for bicycle and pedestrian planning in the MPO area; however, we understand that we have a limited amount of actual bicycle data with which to work.
Addressing your comments would require us to perform before-and-after studies and surveys to determine those users who drive to the site; use it for recreation only; bike instead of using their car for traveling to work, school or for shopping purposes; or bike on another facility. A request to conduct this additional work could be submitted as a comment during the development of the next Unified Planning Work Program.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
 (Phase 2D)
Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown States that the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phase 2D) was awarded three points in the TIP project evaluation process under the "improves substandard sidewalk" criterion in the System Preservation category. Because this is an expansion project, she asks how it would be awarded points for preservation. Notes that the five points awarded under the "improves pedestrian network" criterion in the Capacity Management/Mobility category includes two points for "adds new sidewalk(s) (including shared use paths)."
 
Requests removal of the three points for improving substandard sidewalks.
74-75 The Town of Sudbury's Environmental Planner stated that some sections of the trail are routinely used, even though there are rail tracks and ties in place.  The running team from the high school regularly uses a portion of the path as part of a running circuit.  In these and some other frequently visited sections, there are path clearings, commonly called “goat paths,” that indicate routine use.

Based on this input, MPO staff assigned points for system preservation and improving a currently used path/sidewalk. The project was also awarded points for adding a new sidewalk. This project will allow the entire trail to be used and, since it will be paved, it will be accessible to more users.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
 (Phase 2D)
Request Sudbury resident: Bill Schineller Asks if Eversource should be offered right of first refusal over MassDOT to create Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, citing MAPC's promotion of "piggybacking" on utilities projects and Eversource's planned north-south upgrade between Sudbury and Maynard/Concord in 2020.
76 The general division of responsibilities for this project is such that the town is responsible for funding the design, engineering, right-of-way, and permitting work while it receives federal and state funds for project construction. When a transportation project receives federal and state funds for construction, the project proponent must ensure compliance with MassDOT’s engineering standards. In this case, since Sudbury is the project proponent, it is the responsibility of the town to engage Eversource, if the company is interested in getting involved in construction of the trail.

Projects funded in the TIP are supported by multiple interrelated planning processes, including the MPO's Long-Range Transportation Plan, MassDOT's Bicycle Transportation Plan, and local transportation planning and long-range planning.  As communities undertake roadway and transportation improvements, they often plan for these to coincide with needed utility work.

Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Oppose Acton resident: Kurt Marden States that building the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail on the right-of-way as planned would destroy what could be a viable circumferential light rail commuter line between Lowell and Walpole that would connect nearly all existing commuter lines. A small percentage of advocates desire the trail, and building it would be at the expense of creating an interconnected transit system in the outer Boston suburbs. 77-78 Rail corridors are generally leased to municipalities for use as rail trails with provisions that the state can take the corridor back if rail service is being introduced back into that area.
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue          
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) Oppose Municipal: Mayor Setti Warren; Marianne B. Cooley, Chair, Needham Board of Selectmen; Kate Fitzpatrick, Needham Town Manager; James Cote, Newton City Councilor Dedham resident: Linda L. Logan
Dover resident: Wendy Bornstein
Walpole resident: Karen Griffey
Waltham resident: Rachel Weinstein
Boston resident: Michelle Kohanloo
Chestnut Hill resident: Joyce Plotkin
Others: Scott Wolf, John Brennan, Joanne Briggs, Joanne Minichino, John Foley, Emily Connor, David Conti
Organizations: TRIC, TripAdvisor, Newton Technology Park, Newton Center Associates, New Art Center Boston Development Group, Building 36, William James College, ArtScience Group, Sheraton Needham Hotel, New Coat Painting, Global Urban Solutions, Creative Development Co., Bakers Best Catering, Ball Consulting Group, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Massachusetts Bay Community College, Mantra Computing
Newton residents: Allison Yee, Jarrad Glennon, Steffi Aronson Karp, Ruth Barnett, Jane Frantz, Michael Norman, Carrie Tracy, Vadim Kagan, Jan Huffman, Alan Huberman, Drew Grandi, Kent Gonzales, David P. Boronkay, Linda R. Green, Julie Lamie, Diane Pruente
Needham residents: Glenn A. Mulno, Jim Galovski, Mary H., Martin Sklar, Rhanna Kidwell, Glenn K. Rosengard, Daniel Gersh, Marina Glekel, Matthew Talcoff
Opposes reprogramming the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue from the FFY 2018 to the FFY 2019 element of the TIP. The congestion and safety issues along the corridor are a detriment to the local economy and quality of life. The project is essential to the region's economic and residential growth; delaying the project will affect planned developments that are contingent on the proposed improvements, and congestion will worsen if traffic conditions are not addressed. Improving travel times is vital to both attracting and retaining residents and employees, as is improving the currently dangerous conditions for cyclists and pedestrians.
 
Requests that MassDOT accelerate their efforts in order to keep the project on its former timeline.
7-8,
79-137
Due to the large number of easements that need to be acquired for construction of this project, it is not possible to meet a schedule of advertising this project for construction in FFY 2018.
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) Oppose Newton resident: Srdjan S. Nedeljkovic Asks that the MPO delay the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue and that the Commonwealth withhold further funding until a plan is developed regarding underground utilities. States that the current design does not move overhead utilities underground, despite appeals to the City of Newton. At a minimum, a plan should be developed for a conduit to be placed during roadway construction; a plan should also be developed to determine construction factors and a definite cost estimate. Construction should not begin until underground utilities have been addressed and included in the design. 138 Your comment was transmitted to MassDOT. The responsibility of relocating utilities underground lies with the City of Newton and not MassDOT. The cost of relocating utilities would be paid by rate payers of the City of Newton.

Although the relocation of utilities underground was discussed during project design and development, it was determined to be cost prohibitive and, therefore, was not pursued as a viable option. Relocating utilities underground is not necessary in order to construct this project and, therefore, MassDOT is not participating in this design element.

To become involved in the transportation planning and construction process in the Boston Region, you are encouraged to attend MPO meetings and contact the MassDOT project manager for more information on specific construction issues concerning this project. You can look up information on the project online (www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx) and contact MassDOT through this website.
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) Oppose Newton resident: Bob K. Asks that the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue receive only local funds from Needham and Newton, rather than federal and state funds. States that federal and state funding is not justified and unnecessary. Current financial issues in the Commonwealth should render this project a low priority. 139 Every year, the MPO receives funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to program transportation construction projects that are determined by the MPO to be a priority for the region. In order to select projects for funding, MPO staff evaluates each project using criteria that reflect the MPO's goals and objectives in the Long-Range Transportation Plan. This project had a high score and significant community support, both from residents and elected officials. For all of these reasons, it was selected for funding in the Transportation Improvement Program to be constructed using federal funds and state matching funds.
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) Support + Request Newton resident: Andreae Downs Supports the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue project in the FFYs 2019 and 2020 elements of the TIP, noting disappointment in the delay from FFY 2018. Expresses gratitude that MassDOT will use the delay to modernize and improve the bike/ped elements of the project. Notes that new developments are contingent on the completion of the project.

Requests that MassDOT work closely with Newton officials regarding changes to the design, and that better avenues of communication are established.
140 Due to the large number of easements that need to be acquired for construction of this project, it is not possible to meet a schedule of advertising this project for construction in FFY 2018.

MassDOT will continue to coordinate with the municipalities affected by this project.
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) Request Needham resident: Christina Hua States that plans for Highland Avenue show that a wooden fence would be built on their property beyond the sound barrier leading to I-95 South. Their neighbor received a wooden fence while they only received four panels.  141 Your comment was transmitted to MassDOT. According to the MassDOT project manager, no fencing is being installed on abutter properties as part of the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue project (MassDOT ID # 606635). The fencing you see may be related to the I-95/Route 128 (Add-a-Lane) project (MassDOT ID # 603711).
 
To become involved in the transportation planning and construction process in the Boston region, you are encouraged to attend MPO meetings and contact the MassDOT project manager for more information on specific construction issues. You can look up information on the project online (www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx) and contact MassDOT through this website.
Minuteman Bikeway Extension          
Minuteman Bikeway Extension
 (Bedford)
Support Organizations: CrossTown Connect TMA, MAGIC, Bedford Friends of the Minuteman Bikeway Supports inclusion of the Minuteman Bikeway Extension in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project is a step toward building a regional trail network that will connect Concord to Alewife Station and the urban core, as well as link the communities along the trail; this could benefit the local economy by attracting residents and visitors. The project will also promote community health and reduce greenhouse gases.
 
The Bedford Friends of the Minuteman Bikeway note they collected 392 signatures in support of the project.
3-4, 11-12, 142-144   This project is funded in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Minuteman Bikeway Extension
 (Bedford)
Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown States that the Minuteman Bikeway Extension was awarded three points  under the "improves substandard sidewalk" criterion in the System Preservation category. Because this is an expansion project, she asks how it would be awarded points for preservation. Notes that the five points awarded under the "improves pedestrian network" criterion in the Capacity Management/Mobility category includes two points earned under the "adds new sidewalk(s) (including shared use paths)" criterion.
 
Requests removal of the three points for improving substandard sidewalks.
74-75 The Minuteman Bikeway project includes a section on Railroad Avenue where existing sidewalks will be improved and new sidewalks added. Additionally, this section of the Minuteman Bikeway currently functions as the Reformatory Branch Trail. Existing conditions along the Reformatory Branch Trail are described in the feasibility study. The existing trail is described as being frequented by bicyclists and pedestrians and as a popular recreational path. Additionally, the path is currently covered with gravel. Due to these existing conditions, points were awarded for system preservation. Since this project both improves existing assets and plans to add new pedestrian and bicycle amenities, it was awarded points in each category.
Other Projects (Not Currently Programmed)          
Grade Separated Multi-Use Path Construction along the Paul Dudley White Path at North Harvard Street Bridge over Charles River (Anderson Memorial Bridge)
 (Boston)
Request Boston resident: Paul Moyer Requests inclusion of the Grade Separated Multi-Use Path Construction project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States the proposed tunnel underneath North Harvard Street would eliminate the currently dangerous at-grade intersection. 145 When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and will consider the unfunded projects that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle.

This project was not evaluated by MPO staff because a functional design report was not provided; these reports are critical to understanding a project's proposed improvements. During the next TIP cycle, MPO staff will again reach out to project proponents and MassDOT in order to obtain information with which to evaluate this project, so that it may be considered for funding in the FFYs 2019-23 TIP.
Bowker Overpass
(Boston)
Request Boston resident: Paul Moyer Requests inclusion of the Signal Installation at Route 3 Ramps and Route 3A project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States that signalization is a high priority for the town, as two higher-density developments at the location have recently completed full build-out, and medical office use is expanding in the vicinity. Notes that heavier traffic is anticipated for the 400-year anniversaries of Plymouth and other coastal communities. Requests the MPO reconsider these aspects in the scoring the project. 145 A project addressing the Bowker Overpass is programmed for funding in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. This project is referenced in the TIP as project ID number 606728, Superstructure Repairs on B-16-365, Bowker Overpass over Storrow Drive (EB).
I-93/I-95 Canton Interchange
 Project
Request Legislative: Representative William C. Galvin
Municipal: Charles Aspinwall, Canton Town Administrator
Requests the inclusion of the I-93/I-95 Canton Interchange Project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The flaws in the current design have been known for decades. The sharp turns are a safety hazard for truckers and have resulted in numerous accidents involving serious personal injury, the release of hazardous materials, and deaths. Traffic congestion has reduced air quality, hampered local businesses, and impeded economic growth, costing the region millions in potential tax revenue. Completion of the project will honor a long-standing commitment of the Commonwealth to residents who use the corridor. 146-147 This project will be reevaluated and considered for inclusion in the MPO's new Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which will be developed in FFY 2019. Prior to being programmed in the TIP to receive federal funding, this project would need to be included as a priority in the LRTP.
Signal Installation at Route 3
 (NB & SB) Ramps and Route 3A (Tremont St)
 (Duxbury)
Request Organization: SSC
Municipal: Duxbury Board of Selectmen
Requests the inclusion of the Signal Installation at Route 3 Ramps and Route 3A project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States that signalization is a high priority for the town, as two high-density developments at the location have recently completed full build-out, and medical office use is expanding in the vicinity. Notes that heavier traffic is anticipated for the 400-year anniversaries of Plymouth and other coastal communities. Requests that the MPO reconsider these aspects in the scoring the project. 5-6,
148-149
This project is not currently included in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. MPO staff can examine the project evaluation score during development of the next TIP. For consideration for future TIP funding, it is important that the municipality, as the project proponent, participate in MPO meetings and the TIP development process to advocate for the community’s priority projects. The MPO may consider this project for funding in the FFYs 2019-23 TIP or, if funding becomes available, include it in an amendment to the FFYs 2018-22 TIP.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation at Route 9 and Maynard Road
 (Framingham)
Request Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership
Framingham resident: William Hanson
Requests future inclusion of the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Notes that a large number of pedestrians cross the four-lane divided highway. Many of these crossings are made by Framingham State students, and in 2012 one student was killed while attempting the crossing.
 
The 495/MetroWest Partnership identifies this project location as a "transportation nightmare."
16-20, 150 When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and will consider the unfunded projects that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. The MPO will continue to consider this project as funding becomes available.
Southern New England Trunkline Trail
(Franklin and Medway)
Request Other: David Labonte Requests that the MPO consider funding the Southern New England Trunkline Trail (SNETT) in Franklin and Medway. States that for two-and-a-half years, advocacy groups and residents have been waiting for funds to be released from the 2014 Environmental Bond Bill for the trail. States that there are tens of thousands of  residents who want the state to help develop the SNETT. 151 In order for the MPO to consider funding a project along the SNETT, the project would need to be included as a priority in the statewide Bicycle Transportation Plan. MassDOT is currently updating the statewide Bicycle Transportation Plan. Information on the planning process and how to get involved is located at www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/BicyclePlan.aspx.
Alternatively, to advance the project at the local level and seek federal funding for construction through the MPO, municipal staff would need to engage MassDOT in discussion of this project, initiate a project review through MassDOT’s project design and development process, and fund the design. It is important that project proponents engage with the MPO by participating in MPO meetings and the TIP development process to advocate for their priority projects. As projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff can evaluate and present them to the MPO for consideration.
Intersection Improvements at Route 20 & Landham Road
 (Sudbury)
Request Municipal: Melissa Murphy-Rodrigues, Sudbury Town Manager
Organizations: MAGIC, 495/Metrowest Partnership
Sudbury resident: Pat Brown
Requests inclusion of the Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Landham Road project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The intersection is a significant safety concern; there have been 170 reported accidents in the past 10 years, one resulting in a fatality. The proposed improvements will also improve traffic flow by widening the roadway and introducing turning lanes. The Town of Sudbury has advocated for improvements to the intersection for a number of years. 3-4,
16-20,
66-67,
74-75
This project will continue to be considered for TIP funding when funds become available.
Commuter Parking Request Boston resident: Charles Dow Requests increased commuter parking at Braintree, MBTA station on the Red Line, and at the intersection of Route 24 and Route 139 in Stoughton.
152 The MBTA's capital investments and expansion projects are prioritized through planning processes led by MassDOT and the MBTA, including Focus40 (the long-term investment strategy); the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (the five-year financial plan for MassDOT and the MBTA); and the MBTA's Stations and Facilities Plan. (For more information visit www.mbtafocus40.com/ and www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx.)

The MPO is also in the process of developing a funding program for Community Transportation and Parking projects. If there is a project to expand parking, which is advanced by a community and supported by the MBTA, it could be considered for funding under the MPO's Community Transportation and Parking Program.
Spur Line to the Highland Avenue Corridor
 (Newton and Needham)
Request Needham resident: Martin Sklar Requests a public/private partnership to create a spur line for the D Branch of the Green Line to the Highland Avenue corridor. States that a transit option in the area would reduce traffic. The right-of-way from the prior rail line could be used, allowing a reasonable cost for construction. Adds that benefits to the private sector would benefit in ways that are hard to quantify, and raises the question of sustainability of the spur line. 119 The MBTA's capital investments and expansion projects are prioritized through planning processes led by MassDOT and the MBTA, including Focus40 (the long-term investment strategy); the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (the five-year financial plan for MassDOT and the MBTA); and the MBTA's Stations and Facilities Plan. (For more information visit www.mbtafocus40.com/ and www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx.)

These planning and programming efforts are inputs to the MPO’s long-range transportation plan (LRTP), which will be developed in the coming year. Please remain involved in these efforts in order to make your priorities known.
Various Improvements in the Wells Avenue / Needham / Newton Development Area Request Newton resident: Andrea Edson Requests improved public transportation planning in the Wells Avenue / Needham / Newton development area. States that a lack of comprehensive public transit in the area has resulted in heavy vehicle congestion, which will worsen due to new exits and entrances to Route 128.

States the bike lane from on Nahanton Street is dangerous, as it crosses the Route 128/I-95 North exit. Requests the installation of a stop sign for bike lane traffic.

Requests that the Route 60 bus stop at Putterham Circle, granting those in the area easy access to Skyline Park.

Requests the installation of sidewalks along Hammond Pond Parkway.

Requests planning efforts for connecting the Needham commuter rail line to Wells Avenue.
153 Transit projects and other MBTA capital investments are planned through processes led by the MassDOT and the MBTA, including Focus40 (the long-term investment strategy); the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (the five-year financial plan for MassDOT and the MBTA); and the MBTA's Stations and Facilities Plan. (For more information visit www.mbtafocus40.com/ and www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx.) These planning efforts prioritize expansion and reliability projects for the MBTA.

Projects for constructing bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and improved pedestrian connections must be prioritized by the municipality. The municipal proponent must discuss the priority projects with the appropriate MassDOT district office, an important step toward determining the timing of construction and identifying funding.  Then the projects can be initiated and advanced through the MassDOT project development and design process.
Multiple Request Boston resident: Carl Seglem Requests prioritization of the following projects not programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP:
McGrath Boulevard Project (Somerville)
Commonwealth Avenue, Phases 3 and 4 (Boston)
Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements on Exchange Street (Malden)
154 The Commonwealth Avenue project is considered a Major Infrastructure project because the construction cost is estimated to be more than $20 million. Therefore, before this project can be included in the TIP, the MPO board needs to include it in the Boston Region MPO's Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Deliberations about programming this project can take place during the development of the next LRTP, which will begin in FFY 2018. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the MPO's current LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. Assuming this project maintains it place in the next LRTP, the MPO board can consider programming it in the TIP in coming years.  The investment goals established by the MPO are factors that dictate the programming of projects in the TIP. No Major Infrastructure projects were added to the TIP during this year's TIP development cycle due to the fact that currently, about 60 percent of the MPO's TIP Target Program funding is dedicated to projects classified as Major Infrastructure, while the MPO's goal for spending in this category is 44 percent. The Major Infrastructure commitments currently programmed in the TIP include the Rutherford Avenue project (# 606226) and the Green Line Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur (# 1570). Therefore, when recommending new projects for programming, MPO staff focused on funding bicycle and pedestrian projects, Complete Streets projects, and intersection improvement projects. The Commonwealth Avenue and McGrath Boulevard projects, which are both Major Infrastructure projects, will be considered for TIP funding by the MPO board in the future.

   
The City of Malden's project, Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements on Exchange Street, was evaluated by MPO staff earlier this year. Due to the high demand for funding and the numerous worthy transportation construction projects in the region, the MPO did not choose to fund this project during this TIP cycle. The MPO hopes that the City of Malden will continue to advance this project and remain involved in the MPO’s planning process. This project will be considered for programming in the TIP as funding becomes available. This project scored a 54 when it was evaluated with the MPO's evaluation criteria. When ranked among all Complete Streets projects considered for funding in the FFYs 2018-2022 TIP, it ranked 4th out of 12.
Other Projects (Currently Programmed)          
Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner, Route 111, and Route 27
 (Acton)
Support Municipal: Acton Board of Selectmen, Acton Design Review Board, Acton 2020 Committee
Organizations: 495/MetroWest Partnership, MAGIC, CrossTown Connect TMA, Vincent Cuttone (local business owner)
Acton residents: Terra Friedrichs, Brendan Bettez
Supports inclusion of the Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project area is currently dangerous for pedestrians, many of whom are students, due to a lack of pedestrian facilities and traffic flow. The project will address regional vehicular congestion and provide safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities, creating a foundation for a walkable town center and economic growth. The proposed improvements to bicycle and pedestrian safety are in line with Acton residents' support of Complete Streets projects. 3-4,
11-12,
16-20,
155-159
This project is funded in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Reconstruction on Route 126
(Pond Street)
(Ashland)
Support Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership
Ashland resident:
Yolanda Greaves
Supports the  inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 126 project in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. States that the project will upgrade a major business corridor in Ashland, and that residents of the community fully support the project. Notes they are actively working to move engineering along which, if possible, would mean the project could move into the FFY 2019 element.
16-20, 160 This project is funded in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. If this project is ready to advertise for construction sooner and funding becomes available in the TIP, the MPO could consider advancing this project to the FFY 2019 element of the TIP.
Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard
(Boston)
Oppose Boston resident: Anne McKinnon Requests reconsideration of programming the Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard project in the 2019 element of the TIP as currently designed. States the project cost is too high for the project area, adding that few residents of the neighborhood support the current design. 161 Your comment will be transmitted to the MPO board and MassDOT for their consideration.

Please remain involved in the design process, which is conducted by the City of Boston. The City of Boston is responsible for design, engineering, permitting, and the related public process.
Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation over MBTA
 off Carlton Street
 (Brookline)
Support Municipal: Melvin A. Kleckner, Brookline Town Administrator
Organization: MASCO
Supports the inclusion of the Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP, noting disappointment that the project moved from the FFY 2018 to the FFY 2019 element. States the project will restore a historic pedestrian link to the Emerald Necklace Parks and provide universal access to this regional resource. Notes the project is a mitigation measure, required by MEPA, associated with Phase II of the Muddy River Restoration project, also scheduled to begin in FFY 2019. 14-15,
162-163
The decision was made to shift this project from the FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 element of the TIP because of delays in the design and engineering process, which will likely prevent the project from being advertised for construction in FFY 2018.
Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square
 (Gateway East)
 (Brookline)
Support Municipal: Melvin A. Kleckner, Brookline Town Administrator; Brookline Housing Authority
Organization: MASCO
Supports inclusion of the Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project will enhance the mobility of cyclists and pedestrians, including many low-income residents south of Route 9. The improvements will provide protected access to Brookline Village; MBTA rail and bus service; the Longwood Medical Area; and the Emerald Necklace park system's multi-use paths, which are used for both recreational purposes and access to regional employment centers.

162-168 This project is funded in the FFY 2018 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Reconstruction of Broadway
(Chelsea)
Support Boston resident: Carl Seglem Supports the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Broadway project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP.  154 This project is funded in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Reconstruction of Union Avenue
(Framingham)
Support Framingham resident: Ed Kross Requests the use of basins under sidewalks in order to place storm grates out of the path of cyclists. Inlets can be vertical as part of the curb, with a solid cleanout access cover located in the sidewalk. Notes that basin covers in concrete sidewalks are less susceptible to settling than those located in the roadway.

169 Please contact the project proponent, the City of Framingham, for issues regarding project design.
Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135
(Hopkinton)
Support Municipal: Hopkinton Board of Selectmen
Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership
Supports inclusion of the Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135 project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States that Route 135 serves as Hopkinton's principal commercial corridor and as a major regional corridor for MetroWest and Central Massachusetts towns. The project is needed to address the projected 75% increase in traffic volume that is expected to result from traffic associated with permitted development. The proposed improvements will provide access to the Town's public safety facilities, town hall, public library, and the new village district. Adds that the start of the Boston Marathon is within the project limits. Notes that two locations in the project area are ranked with the top 5% of high crash locations within the MPO.
16-20,
170-171
This project is funded in the FFY 2019 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Safe Routes to School Improvements at Brooks Elementary
 (Medford)
Support Medford residents: Ken Krause, Lois Bronnenkant, Ellery Klein, Martha Ondras Supports the inclusion of the Safe Routes to School Improvements at Brooks Elementary in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The area is currently dangerous for pedestrians and children, and design changes are needed to ensure a safe flow of traffic. 172-175 This project is funded in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 2B.
Reconstruction of Route 27
(North Main Street)
(Natick)
Support Municipal: Natick Board of Selectmen
Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership
Support the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 27 project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States the project will support numerous economic development and quality of life initiatives within the community, including connecting housing and business developments to Natick Center and the Natick Center MBTA station.
16-20,
176-179
This project is funded in the FFY 2019 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase 2
(Natick and Framingham)
Support Municipal: Natick Board of Selectmen
Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership
Supports the inclusion of the Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase 2, in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project will support economic development and quality of life initiatives within the community. Expresses appreciation of MassDOT's support of the increased funding level, stating that the cost increase is attributable to the full replacement of the Route 9 bridge, as well as the expansion of the project scope. A nearby development is partially funding the work on Route 30. The Town has recently acquired the CSX right-of-way.

Notes that the Town anticipates that a project will be initiated to establish a link between the trail and a redesigned Natick Center MBTA station, which is now at the beginning of a comprehensive design process.
16-20,
176-179
This project is funded in the FFY 2018 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 2C/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Green Line Extension to College Avenue Support Organization: A Better City
Medford residents: Ken Krause, Martha Ondras
Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension to College Avenue project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project will provide access to educational and job opportunities, reduce vehicle congestion, and increase mobility for low-income households and the elderly.
9-10, 172, 180 This project is funded in the FFYs 2018-21 TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn Street
 (Route 16)
 (Watertown)
Support Municipal: Matthew Shuman, Town Engineer
Boston resident: Carl Seglem
Supports the inclusion of the Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn Street project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The Town looks forward to proceeding with design to meet the FFY 2022 schedule. 154, 181 This project is funded in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
Reconstruction of Route 1A
 (Main Street)
 (Walpole)
Support Municipal: James A. Johnson, Town Administrator
Organization: TRIC
Supports the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 1A project in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. States the project is imperative to addressing significant traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, as well as enhancing the economic development potential in the region. The corridor is one of the region's main thoroughfares, and the project area encompasses several businesses, large commercial plazas, residential areas, and several public schools. Adds the project has been in development since 1997.

7-8, 182 This project is funded in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects.
TIP Process and Documentation          
TIP Document Request MassDOT: Office of Transportation Planning Requests minor changes and clarifications to the document text and TIP tables. 183-185 The requested changes and clarifications will be addressed and incorporated into the final draft of the TIP tables and TIP document. The final version of the TIP will be transmitted to MassDOT after the MPO board endorses the document at their meeting on May 25.
Funding for Bike/Ped Projects Request Beverly resident: Kellie N. Gentry Requests a higher percentage of funding for bike/ped connectivity projects, stating that only 3.8% of the FFYs 2018-22 TIP is dedicated to such projects.
186 During development of the current Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, the MPO set a goal to invest five percent of the funding in the five-year TIP to bicycle and pedestrian projects. This amount equates to approximately $5 million to $6 million per year. These investment goals could change when the MPO revisits its goals during the development of the next LRTP, which will be adopted by the MPO in FFY 2019.
CMAQ Eligibility Comment Only Acton resident: Kurt Marden Questions CMAQ funding for three projects (Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase 2; the Lynnfield/Wakefield Trail Extension; and Phase 2B of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail) in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Using BFRT as an example, states that the projected number of trips on the corridor would not meet cost-effectiveness guidelines outlined in the CMAQ Guidance. Cites sections IV and VI of the Guidance regarding cost-effectiveness.

Adds that the projects will not significantly reduce vehicle emissions, stating that very few commuters use the Minuteman Bikeway Extension during peak hours. Cites section VII of the CMAQ Guidance, noting that trails should not be exclusively recreational and should reduce vehicle trips. Questions how many commuters would use the BFRT in inclement weather.
77-78 The noted bicycle trails were selected, as a result of MassDOT’s project selection process, to receive statewide Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding. MassDOT is committed to promoting bicycling as an important transportation mode that can reduce emissions and support healthy lifestyles. MassDOT’s Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes the creation of the Bay State Greenway system, a cohesive network of bicycle facilities. The sections of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the towns of Acton, Carlisle, Concord, and Westford are part of this system. The section in Sudbury (funded by the MPO) and the proposed extension to Framingham will extend this trail to create a 25-mile path. The rail trail in Wakefield and Lynnfield is part of the Border to Boston Trail, which is also part of the Bay Sate Greenway system.
As outlined in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the MPO is committed, through its vision, goals, and objectives, to provide a transportation system that includes bicycle and pedestrian options to support a sustainable, healthy, livable, and economically vibrant region. In the LRTP, the MPO set aside funding for a bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure program to promote walking and biking in the region. A network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will provide alternatives to travel by automobile.
  Under Section V1.A of CMAQ MAP-21 Interim Program Guidance dated November 12, 2013, areas eligible to receive CMAQ funding include ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter nonattainment and maintenance areas, including areas where the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been revoked. The Boston MPO was formerly in an ozone nonattainment area prior to the revocation of the ozone standard, so it continues to receive this funding, as noted in Section VI.A. CMAQ funds are used to ensure continued attainment of the air quality standards.  Your comment relative to “geographic areas that are eligible to use CMAQ funds” reflects the language in Section VI.C regarding particulate matter. The Boston MPO is in attainment for particulate matter, so this section does not apply in this case. The MPO uses MassDOT’s TIP Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance to calculate the air quality benefits and cost effectiveness of projects proposed for programming in the TIP. This guidance is used for determining CMAQ eligibility. Each project that receives CMAQ funding has been reviewed by a statewide CMAQ Eligibility Committee. Members of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection are part of the committee that deems projects eligible for CMAQ funding. For the air quality analysis, MassDOT provides spreadsheets for each project type, including bicycle and pedestrian projects. Inputs include information on the facility length and service area, and population and employment are considered.  Another important factor is the bicycle and commuter mode share; census and American Community Survey data were used to account for work-related trips. The mode share estimate may be a conservative assumption since it only takes into account commuters who travel to work and does not consider those who would use the facility for shopping and school trips. The bike facilities that you mentioned provide access to commercial areas and schools, so not all trips on those facilities are commuting trips. Such trips replace automobile trips and are not recreational trips. Many of these facilities provide access to MBTA commuter rail stations as well.
Cost Estimates Request Other: AnaCristina Fragoso States that cost estimates for projects based on the 25% submittal phase and cost adjustments of 4% for projects beginning in 2019 are too low. Requests reconsideration of the adjustment contingency if the estimate is based on an early submittal.
187 The Chief Engineer for MassDOT has an initiative underway to improve project delivery, a key component of which involves improving methods for estimating project construction costs. The agency is working with the Transportation Agency Liaison Committee/Highway Division Committee of the American Council of Engineering Companies on these project delivery issues.
Currently, MassDOT is proposing to take the following actions to improve project cost estimation:
• Including design contingencies in project cost estimates and assigning larger design contingencies to high-risk projects
• Using a value for inflation that is adjusted to the midpoint time of construction
• Developing guidance on incorporating  costs for utility relocation and traffic police into the estimates
• Developing protocols for entering costs into MassDOT's project information database
• Establishing guidance for estimating project costs at the pre-25% design stage
• Developing guidance that provides a framework for designers to prepare preliminary design estimates (25% design)
Your comment has been transmitted to MassDOT for their consideration. Boston Region MPO staff and staff of the other MPOs in the state currently adhere to an approach recommended by MassDOT for adjusting projects’ construction costs for inflation: this guidance requires using an annual four percent inflation rate for project cost estimates beginning in the second programming year of the TIP.
Local Access Scoring Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown States data underlying the local access score, known to be flawed, is used for project rankings for local access. The availability of sidewalks is calculated based upon sidewalks listed in the MassDOT Roads Inventory. The database lists these known problems with the current data set. Many communities do not have the resources to update the Inventory for their community—nor do they have any incentive to do so, since listing more sidewalks would decrease their apparent need for funding to build bicycle/pedestrian accommodations. Requests the MPO insist on a minimum level of accuracy for all communities for comparative rankings or decrease the points awarded projects for improving local access.

74-75 The scoring of projects in the TIP evaluation process does not rely on the local access score developed by MAPC. The availability of sidewalks is determined either from a site visit, information in engineering design drawings or reports, conversations with municipal staff, or aerial images provided via Google Earth. Further, the scoring process does not rely on the listing of sidewalk availability in the MassDOT Roadway Inventory. A project may receive points for improving access if it would close a gap in the sidewalk network or the bicycle network. This determination is made using verifiable data.
Table of Evaluated Projects
 (Appendix A)
Support Sudbury resident: Pat Brown Expresses appreciation for the new format for the table of evaluated projects. States that breaking out all sub-scoring and providing a text summary for each column is clearer than previous iterations of the table. Adds that the glossary of acronyms continues to be useful.
74-75 Thank you for your comment. We continuously strive to improve the clarity of our materials and documentation.
CMAQ Funding for Shared Use Paths Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown States that CMAQ funding for shared use paths should be based upon the facility reducing GHG emissions by reducing single-occupant auto travel. Trails provide recreation opportunities, and recreational users may drive to the trail.
Requests that the MPO consider this when developing TIP documents in the future.
74-75 The MPO uses MassDOT’s TIP Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance to calculate the air quality benefits that would be produced by projects. This guidance is used for
• the evaluation of projects proposed for programming in the TIP;
• reporting for compliance with the Global Warming Solution Act; and
• determination of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality eligibility.
The evaluation for this project under the Clean Air and Clean Community goal category was done in accordance with this guidance.

    For the air quality analysis, MassDOT provides spreadsheets for each project type, including bicycle and pedestrian projects. Inputs include information on the facility length and service area, and population and employment are considered.
Another important factor is the bicycle and commuter mode share; census and American Community Survey data were used to account for work-related trips. The mode share estimate may be a conservative assumption since it only takes into account commuters who travel to work and does not consider those who would use the facility for shopping and school trips.
The MPO uses bicycle facility data from the 2011 MassDOT Road Inventory and 2011 MassDOT Bicycle Accommodation Inventory, as well as the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Bicycle and Pedestrian Mapping Index for bicycle and pedestrian planning in the MPO area; however, we understand that we have a limited amount of actual bicycle data with which to work.
Addressing your comments would require us to perform before-and-after studies and surveys to determine those users who drive to the site; use it for recreation only; bike instead of using their car for traveling to work, school or for shopping purposes; or bike on another facility. A request to conduct this additional work could be submitted as a comment during the development of the next Unified Planning Work Program.
Project Evaluations/ EPDO / Injury Values for Shared Use Paths Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown States that EPDO/Injury values for shared-use paths do not accurately reflect their expected contribution to public safety. EPDO/Injury values accurately report accidents involving motor vehicles, while accidents involving bicycles and pedestrians but not involving a motor vehicle are not customarily reported. Adds that the meaning of EPDO values in project areas for shared-use paths is unclear.

Requests that the FFYs 2018-22 TIP state that only accidents involving motorized vehicles are reliably reported under items 23, 25, and 26 on pages B-4 and B-5. This should also be noted in the discussion of safety improvements in Chapter 4.
 
Requests that the MPO consider how to derive meaningful safety measurements for shared-use paths in future TIP documents.
74-75 As you correctly state, EPDO values reflect crashes involving motor vehicles, but not bicycle and pedestrian crashes that do not involve motor vehicles. For off-road paths specifically, EPDO values provide an important quantitative approach to measure crash severity and crash rates at locations where a path crosses a road. Other aspects of safety are assessed in the project evaluation process through the use of evaluation criteria that qualitatively measure the effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures. For example, a project that adds a protected bicycle lane may be awarded more points than a project that adds an on-road bicycle lane.
The MPO staff can clarify how EPDO values are used for evaluating shared-use paths in the document that describes the TIP evaluation criteria. Also, new or revised safety measurements will be considered when the MPO undertakes a revision of the TIP project evaluation criteria.
Document Readability
 (Chapter 2)
Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown States page 2-8 of the TIP document, which documents project ranking criteria, lacks sufficient contrast between text and background for legibility. Requests recoloring of the page.
74-75 The color scheme of this graphic will be adjusted.
Quantification of CO2 Reduction Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown Requests that the MPO either quantify CO2 reduction in tons (the method used in the Highway Program Project Detail pages) or in kilograms (the method used in Appendix C), or clarify why different units are used in different sections.

74-75 The MPO quantifies greenhouse gas reductions associated with projects in both kilograms and tons. Kilograms are used for reporting in Appendix C of the TIP, as required by MassDOT’s TIP Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance. The measurement  is reported in tons in the project descriptions in Chapter 3 of the TIP because it is assumed that it is easier for the public to visualize tons than kilograms.

 

Appendix E

MPO Glossary of Acronyms

 

Acronym

Definition

3C

continuous, comprehensive, cooperative [metropolitan transportation planning process]

A&F

Administration and Finance Committee

AACT

Access Advisory Committee to the MBTA

ABP

Accelerated Bridge Program [MassDOT]

ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

ADT

average daily traffic

AADT

annual average daily traffic

AFC

automated fare collection [system]

AMPO

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

APC

automatic passenger counter

APTA

American Public Transportation Association

ARAN

automatic road analyzer

ARRA

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

ASL

American sign language

ATR

automatic traffic recorder

AVL

automatic vehicle location

AWDT

average weekday daily traffic

BCIL

Boston Center for Independent Living

BPDA

Boston Planning and Development Agency, formerly known as the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) [City of Boston]

BRA

Boston Redevelopment Authority [City of Boston]

BRT

bus rapid transit

BTD

Boston Transportation Department

CA/T

Central Artery/Tunnel [project] (also known as “the Big Dig”)

CAA

Clean Air Act of 1970

CAAA

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CATA

Cape Ann Transportation Authority

CBD

central business district

CFR

Code of Federal Regulation

CHSTP

Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan

CIC

Community Innovation Challenge

CIP

Capital Investment Plan [MassDOT]

CMAQ

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality [federal funding program]

CMP

Congestion Management Process

CNG

compressed natural gas

CO

carbon monoxide

CO2

carbon dioxide

CTPS

Central Transportation Planning Staff

CTTAP

Community Transportation Technical Assistance Program

DBMS

Database Management System

DCAMM

Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance [Massachusetts]

DCR

Department of Conservation and Recreation

DEIR

draft environmental impact report

DEP

Department of Environmental Protection [Massachusetts]

DMU

diesel multiple unit [transit vehicle]

DTA

dynamic traffic assignment [travel demand modeling]

EERPAT

Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool

EIR

environmental impact report

EIS

environmental impact statement

EJ

environmental justice

EOEEA

Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

EOHED

Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development

EOHHS

Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency [federal]

EPDO

equivalent property damage only [a traffic-related index]

ETC

electronic toll collection

FAST Act

FDR

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

functional design report

FEIR

final environmental impact report

FFGA

full funding grant agreement

FFY, FFYs

federal fiscal year, federal fiscal years

FHEA

Fair Housing Equity Assessment

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

FMCB

Fiscal and Management Control Board of the MBTA

FONSI

finding of no significant impact

FTA

Federal Transit Administration

GANS

grant anticipation notes [municipal bond financing]

GHG

greenhouse gas [as in greenhouse gas emissions]

GIS

geographic information system

GLX

Green Line Extension [Green Line Extension project]

GPS

global positioning system

GTFS

General Transit Feed Specification [data standard]

GWI

global warming index

GWSA

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008 [Massachusetts]

HOV

high-occupancy vehicle

HPP

high-priority projects

HSIP

Highway Safety Improvement Program [federal funding program]

HTC

Healthy Transportation Compact

ICC

Inner Core Committee [MAPC municipal subregion]

IMS

intermodal management system

INVEST

Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool [FHWA]

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IT&S

Information Technology and Systems [CTPS group]

ITDP

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

ITE

Institute of Transportation Engineers

ITS

intelligent transportation systems

JARC

Job Access and Reverse Commute [program]

LAP

language access plan

LCW

Livable Community Workshop

LEP

limited English proficiency

LNG

liquefied natural gas

LOS

level of service

LRTA

Lowell Regional Transit Authority

LRTP

Long-Range Transportation Plan [MPO certification document]

MAGIC

Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination [MAPC municipal subregion]

MAP-21

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

MAPC

Metropolitan Area Planning Council

MARPA

Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies

MassDOT

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

MassGIS

[Commonwealth’s] Office of Geographic Information Systems

Massport

Massachusetts Port Authority

MassRIDES

MassDOT’s statewide travel options program

MBCR

Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad

MBTA

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (also known as “the T”)

MCAD

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination

MEMA

Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency

MEPA

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act

MGL

Massachusetts general laws

MHS

metropolitan highway system

MOU

memorandum of understanding

MOVES

Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator [EPA air quality model]

MPO

metropolitan planning organization [Boston Region MPO]

MPOinfo

Boston Region MPO’s email contact list

MWGMC

MetroWest Growth Management Committee [MAPC municipal subregion]

MWRC

MetroWest Regional Collaborative [MAPC municipal subregion]

MWRTA

MetroWest Regional Transit Authority

NAAQS

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBPD

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NHPP

National Highway Performance Program

NHS

National Highway System

NMHC

non-methane hydrocarbons

NOx

nitrogen oxides

NTD

National Transit Database

NTP

notice to proceed

O&M

operations and management

ODCR

Office of Diversity and Civil Rights [MassDOT]

OE

operating expenses

OTA

Office for Transportation Access [MBTA]

OTP

Office of Transportation Planning [MassDOT]

P3

Public Participation Plan [MPO document]

PBPP

performance-based planning and programming

PDM

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program [federal]

PEV

pedestrian environmental variable

PL

metropolitan planning funds [FHWA] or public law funds

PM

particulate matter [category of air pollution]

PMT

Program for Mass Transportation [MBTA]

ppm

parts per million

PRC

Project Review Committee [MassDOT]

PSAC

Project Selection Advisory Council [MassDOT]

RCCs

Regional Coordinating Councils

RIF

roadway inventory file

RMV

Registry of Motor Vehicles [MassDOT division]

ROC

Rider Oversight Committee [MBTA]

ROW

right-of-way

RPA

regional planning agency

RSA

Roadway Safety Audit [FHWA]

RSS

rich site summary [Web, feed]

RTA

regional transit authority

RTAC

Regional Transportation Advisory Council [of the Boston Region MPO]

RTC

Regional Transportation Center

SAFE

service and fare equity [Title VI]

SAFETEA-LU

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act−A Legacy for Users

SCCCT

Statewide Coordinating Council on Community Transportation

SCI

sustainable communities initiative

SDO

supplier diversity office

SFY

state fiscal year

SGR

state of good repair

SHRP

Strategic Highway Research Program

SHSP

Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SIP

State Implementation Plan

SNAC

special needs advisory committee

SNLA

Small Necessities Leave Act

SORE

statement of revenue and expenses

SOV

single-occupancy vehicle

SPR

Statewide Planning and Research

SRTS

Safe Routes to School [federal program]

STB

State Transportation Building [Boston]

STBGP

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program [federal funding program; replaced STP]

STIP

State Transportation Improvement Program

STP

Surface Transportation Program [federal funding program; replaced by STBGP]

TAM

transit asset management

TAP

Transportation Alternatives Program [federal funding program]

TAZ

transportation analysis zone [travel demand modeling term]

TCMs

transportation control measures

TCRP

Transit Cooperative Research Program

TDM

travel-demand management, or transportation-demand management

TE

transportation equity

TEAMS

Travel Efficiency Assessment Method

TIGER

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery [TIGER Discretionary Grant program, federal]

TIP

Transportation Improvement Program [MPO certification document]

Title VI

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

TMA [1]

transportation management area [FTA, FHWA]

TMA [2]

Transportation Management Association

TMC

turning movement counts

TOD

transit-oriented development

TRB

Transportation Research Board

TREDIS

Transportation Economic Development Impact System [software]

TSIMS

Transportation Safety Information Management System

TSM

transportation systems management [FHWA]

UFP

ultrafine particles

UPWP

Unified Planning Work Program [MPO certification document]

USDOT

United States Department of Transportation [agency oversees FHWA and FTA]

USGS

United States Geological Survey

UZA

urbanized area

V/C

volume-to-capacity ratio

VHT

vehicle-hours traveled

VMS

variable message signs

VMT

vehicle-miles traveled

VOCs

volatile organic compounds [pollutants]

VRH

vehicle revenue-hours

VRM

vehicle revenue-miles

WalkBoston

pedestrian advocacy group [Boston area]

WAT

walk-access transit

WMM

weMove Massachusetts [MassDOT planning initiative]

WTS

Women in Transportation Seminar

YMM

youMove Massachusetts [MassDOT planning initiative]

 

 

Appendix F

Geographic Distribution Analysis of the TIP’s MPO Target Programming


PURPOSE and METHODOLOGY

Purpose

Appendix F summarizes the geographic distribution of Regional Target Program funding within the Boston MPO region between federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2008 and 2022. This data was first compiled for FFYs 2008 through 2013 as part of a response to the Boston Region MPO’s 2014 Certification Review by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). For this FFYs 2018–22 TIP, the data was updated to reflect the distribution of Regional Target Program funding, as currently planned, through FFY 2022.

The purpose of this data collection and analysis is to understand the geographic spread of the TIP Target Program funding throughout the region. In other words, this exercise serves to illuminate which communities and areas of our metropolitan region have received Regional Target Program funding for transportation construction projects. (Additional federal transportation dollars from earmarks and MassDOT discretionary items are excluded from this analysis.)

Methodology

MPO staff took the following steps to develop the dataset:

NEXT STEPS

The data summarized in this appendix could be used in various ways to help guide spending decisions in future TIPs. Some analyses that the MPO could perform in the future include the following:

Maintaining a database to track the geographic distribution of TIP funding can serve as one important input into the funding decisions made each FFY. When considered in combination with other data, as described above, this data on geographic distribution of Regional Target Program funding can help guide the MPO’s public outreach and decision making to help ensure that, over time, we are meeting the transportation needs of the region.

 

Figures F-1 and F-2 summarize this data by subregion and municipality type and Table F-1 shows the detailed data for each municipality in the Boston region.

 

 

 

Figure F-1:

TIP Target Funding by Subregion, FFYs 2008-22

 

TIP Target Funding by Subregion, FFYs 2008-2022

 

MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, NSPC = North Shore Planning Council, NSTF = North Shore Task Force,
SSC = South Shore Coalition, SWAP = South West Advisory Planning Committee, TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council

 

 

 

 

Figure F-2:

TIP Target Funding by Municipality Type, FFYs 2008-22

 

TIP Target Funding by Municipality Type, FFYs 2008-2022

MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, NSPC = North Shore Planning Council, NSTF = North Shore Task Force,
SSC = South Shore Coalition, SWAP = South West Advisory Planning Committee, TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council

 

 

Table F-1:

TIP Target Programming by Municipality (FFYs 2008-22)

Municipality FFYs 2008-16  TIP FFY 2017 TIP FFY 2018 TIP FFY 2019 TIP FFY 2020 TIP FFY 2021 TIP FFY 2022 TIP FFYs 2018-22 TIP FFYs 2008-22 TIP Additional Information
Acton  $275,507  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $275,507 blank
Arlington  $5,125,719  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $5,125,719 blank
Ashland  blank   blank   blank   blank   $15,532,405  blank   $15,532,405  $15,532,405 blank
Bedford  $17,353,183  $3,302,453  blank   blank   blank   blank     $3,302,453  $20,655,636 $13,014,923 split with Burlington (29491); $28,296,348 split with Burlington (29492)
Bellingham  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Belmont  $17,229,071  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $17,229,071 $5,200,000 split with Somerville and Cambridge (600811)
Beverly  $21,982,712  blank   blank   blank   blank   $3,509,576  $3,509,576  $25,492,288 blank
Bolton  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Boston  $29,525,377  blank   blank   $7,853,499  $15,214,319  $21,832,529  $44,900,347  $74,425,724 $4,842,540 split with Everett (602382)
Boxborough  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Braintree  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Brookline  $213,702    $5,273,202  blank   blank   blank     $5,273,202  $5,486,904 blank
Burlington  $17,353,183  $3,302,453  blank   blank   blank   blank   $3,302,453  $20,655,636 $13,014,923 split with Bedford (29491); $28,296,348 split with Bedford (29492)
Cambridge  $4,766,654  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $4,766,654 $5,200,000 split with Somerville and Belmont (600811)
Canton  $10,688,605  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $10,688,605 $26,959,389 split with Dedham, Randolph, and Westwood (87800)
Carlisle  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Chelsea  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Cohasset  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Concord  $26,093,441  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $26,093,441 $39,584,874 split with Lincoln (602984)
Danvers  $32,716,174  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $32,716,174 blank
Dedham  $21,129,280  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $21,129,280 $46,956,250 split with Needham (603206); $26,959,389 split with Canton, Randolph, and Westwood (87800)
Dover  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Duxbury  $247,076  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $247,076 GATRA funding split with Marshfield; submit TIP funding requests through OCPC
Essex  $6,166,644  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $6,166,644 blank
Everett  $2,421,270  blank   blank   $7,244,124  blank   blank   $7,244,124  $9,665,394 $4,842,540 split with Boston (602382)
Foxborough  $2,711,153  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $2,711,153 $8,133,460 split with Norfolk and Wrentham (602496)
Framingham  $550,814  blank   blank   blank   blank   $10,063,912  $10,063,912  $10,614,726 MWRTA Route 7 service funding; 
MWRTA Route 1 service funding
Franklin  $4,991,116  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $4,991,116 blank
Gloucester  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Hamilton  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Hanover  $1,993,926  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $1,993,926 blank
Hingham  blank   $4,927,769  $3,057,735  blank   blank   blank     $7,985,504  $7,985,504 blank
Holbrook  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $1,363,630  $1,363,630  $1,363,630 blank
Holliston  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Hopkinton  blank   blank   blank   $8,501,376  blank   blank   $8,501,376  $8,501,376 blank
Hudson  $11,114,480  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $11,114,480 $300,000 split with Route 128 Business Council
Hull  $1,885,976  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $1,885,976 blank
Ipswich  $3,250,305  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $3,250,305 blank
Lexington  $7,438,080  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $7,438,080 blank
Lincoln  $22,492,311  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $22,492,311 $39,584,874 split with Concord (602984)
Littleton  $4,200,000  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $4,200,000 blank
Lynn  $5,531,280  blank   blank   blank   $4,953,270  blank     $4,953,270  $10,484,550 blank
Lynnfield  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Malden  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Manchester  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Marblehead  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Marlborough  blank   $5,613,636  blank   blank   blank   blank   $5,613,636  $5,613,636 blank
Marshfield  $5,929,736  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $5,929,736 GATRA funding split with Duxbury
Maynard  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Medfield  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Medford  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Medway  $12,062,567  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $12,062,567 blank
Melrose  $4,405,030  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $4,405,030 blank
Middleton  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Milford  $7,600,000  blank   blank   $3,149,619  blank   blank   $3,149,619  $10,749,619 blank
Millis  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Milton  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank  blank
Nahant  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Natick  $4,450,987  blank   blank   $15,459,553  blank   blank     $15,459,553  $19,910,540 blank
Needham  $74,110,472  $12,269,908  $8,726,330  blank   blank   blank     $20,996,238  $95,106,710 $46,956,250 split with Dedham (603206); $28,613,160 split with Wellesley (603711); $15,464,292 split with Newton (606635)
Newton  $10,988,203  blank   $7,732,146  blank   blank   blank   $7,732,146  $18,720,349 $7,197,384 split with Watertown (601686); $15,464,292 split with Needham (606635)
Norfolk  $2,711,153  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $2,711,153 $8,133,460 split with Foxborough and Wrentham (602496)
North Reading  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Norwell  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Norwood  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   $6,317,236    $6,317,236  $6,317,236 blank
Peabody  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Pembroke  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  Submit TIP funding requests through OCPC
Quincy  $3,575,278  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $3,575,278 blank
Randolph  $10,529,796  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $10,529,796 $26,959,389 split with Canton, Dedham, and Westwood (87800)
Reading  $8,072,234  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $8,072,234 blank
Revere  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Rockland  $7,500,000  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $7,500,000 $15,000,000 split with Weymouth (604510)
Rockport  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Salem  $10,126,263  blank   blank   $2,595,840  blank   blank     $2,595,840  $12,722,103 blank
Saugus  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Scituate  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Sharon  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Sherborn  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Somerville  $23,420,945  $29,900,000  $40,000,000  $40,000,000  $40,000,000  $32,000,000    $181,900,000  $205,320,945 $5,200,000 split with Belmont and Cambridge (600811)
Southborough  $71,521  blank   $7,281,248  blank   blank   blank     $7,281,248  $7,352,769 blank
Stoneham  $1,809,703  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $1,809,703 $5,429,110 split with Winchester and Woburn (604652)
Stoughton  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  Submit TIP funding requests through OCPC
Stow  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Sudbury  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Swampscott  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Topsfield  $3,936,780  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $3,936,780 blank
Wakefield  $2,254,636  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $2,254,636 blank
Walpole  blank   blank   blank   blank   $18,584,373  blank     $18,584,373  $18,584,373 blank
Waltham  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Watertown  $5,387,812  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $5,387,812 $7,197,384 split with Newton (601686)
Wayland  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Wellesley  $60,001,722  $12,269,908  $994,184  blank   blank   blank     $13,264,092  $73,265,814 $28,613,160 split with Needham (603711)
Wenham  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Weston  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Westwood  $24,638,546  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $24,638,546 $26,959,389 split with Canton, Dedham, and Randolph (87800)
Weymouth  $14,883,300  $12,850,000  $19,591,490  $8,040,268  blank   blank     $40,481,758  $55,365,058 $15,000,000 split with Rockland (604510)
Wilmington  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Winchester  $1,809,703  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $1,809,703 $5,429,110 split with Stoneham and Woburn (604652)
Winthrop  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   blank  blank
Woburn  $1,809,703  $4,752,838  blank   blank   blank   $17,784,392    $22,537,230  $24,346,933 $5,429,110 split with Stoneham and Winchester (604652)
Wrentham  $2,711,153  blank   blank   blank   blank   blank     blank   $2,711,153 $8,133,460 split with Foxborough and Norfolk (602496)

 

MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, NSPC = North Shore Planning Council, NSTF = North Shore Task Force, SSC = South Shore Coalition, SWAP = South West Advisory Planning Committee,
TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council

 

1 The MPO’s Public Participation Plan was amended in March 2017 to revise the duration of the public comment period from 30 days to 21 days for FFY 2017.

2    Section 134 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended.

3 Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 450.324(e).

 

4 Source: MassDOT, 2014 Top Crash Locations Report, August 2016, http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/CrashData/14TopCrashLocationsRpt.pdf.

5 The term “high-crash locations” refers to MassDOT-identified 2012-14 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) clusters, which rank in the top five percent of crash clusters within each Regional Planning Agency (RPA) area. This ranking is based on a combination of factors, including EPDO index values, based on motor vehicle crash data. 

6 This monitoring accounts for approximately 46 percent of the interstate, arterial, and collector roadways (approximately 9,100 lane miles) in the Commonwealth, according to the Boston Region MPO lane miles listed in the MassDOT’s 2014 Road Inventory Year-End Report.

7 Calculations for reduced daily vehicle delay exclude several highway projects that were included in the air quality modeling results in Charting Progress for 2040.

8 Calculations for carbon dioxide and other emission reductions exclude several highway projects that were included in the air quality modeling results in Charting Progress for 2040.

9 Calculations for carbon dioxide and other emission reductions exclude several highway projects that were included in the air quality modeling results in Charting Progress for 2040.